HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08092005 - D6 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS f
Contra
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP
Costa
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
County
co
DATE: AUGUST 9, 2005
SUBJECT: HEARING ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO
ADOPT AN AMENDMENT TO THE COUNTY ORIDINANCE CODE TO REGULATE
TEMPORARY EVENTS THAT TAKE PLACE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY AND GENERATE
OR INVITE CONSIDERABLE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE
APPLIES TO PRIVATE PROPERTY IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS IN THE
UNINCORPORATED AREA OF THE COUNTY. (COUNTY FILE #ZT050001)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
I. RECOMMENDATIONS
A. OPEN the hearing; ACCEPT testimony related to the proposed zoning text amendment.
B. FIND that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
pursuant to Section 15304 (e); minor temporary use of land having negligible or no
permanent effects on the environment, including carnivals, sales of Christmas trees, etc.
C. FIND that the proposed text amendment to the ordinance is consistent with the overall goals
and objectives of the General Plan.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE �.
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
-M
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS-fiEw G W I V I I V IEI Is&_-A,0 ONI E R
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT_) CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
AYES:-200""nr-wr 1 -11NOES: IZ' ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
ABSEN0 1 IfABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN
Contact:John Oborne,(925)3351207 ATTESTED
JOHN SWEETEN, CL (OF THE BOARD OF
Orig: Community Development Department SUPERVISORS AND OUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
cc. County Counsel
County Administrator's Office
Clerk of the Board BY
All Municipal Advisory Councils DtPUTY
AUGUST 9, 2005 County File#ZT05-0001
Board of Supervisors
Page 2
D. ADOPT the amendment to the County Ordinance Code adding Chapter 82-44, which
establishes the Temporary Events Ordinance.
E. ADOPT the findings of the County Planning Commission as contained in Resolution No. 23-
2005 as the basis for the decision.
F. Direct staff to post a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk.
II. FISCAL IMPACT
The Board of Supervisors directed staff to amend the County Ordinance Code to regulate
temporary events on private property in the unincorporated areas of the County. To date, nineteen
thousand dollars have been spent for staff costs related to preparing the draft ordinance. This will
be included in the Department's unfunded mandate request. In addition, the implementation of the
ordinance will require a change to the Fee Resolution to ensure that the costs of considering the
permit applications are covered. The Department will be placing this item on the Board's agenda in
September.
III. BACKGROUND / REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The purpose of the proposed ordinance is to establish a temporary event permitting process by
which the Zoning Administrator may condition the issuance of a temporary events permit by
imposing reasonable requirements concerning the time, place, and manner of the event. The
proposed ordinance identifies events that are not subject to review, those that require a temporary
events permit, and those that require a land use permit. The permitting process and the grounds for
approval and denial of temporary event permits are also specified. For a more detailed discussion
of the proposed ordinance, refer to the Planning Commission staff report in Exhibit III (pages S-2
through S-5).
The proposed ordinance was circulated to the municipal advisory councils and other organizations
that frequently interact with the Community Development Department fora 30 day review and
comment period. The comments received have all been included as part of the staff report prepared
for the County Planning Commission's July 12, 2005 hearing (refer to attached). As a result of the
comments received, the proposed ordinance has undergone significant revisions. The revisions
include:
• Reducing the number of events that would be allowed in a calendar year from four events to
three events;
• Exempting events held on public property, in a public facility, or in a public park, provided all
other permits and licenses required by the County Code or state law are obtained;
• Exempting events held at schools and religious facilities provided the event is consistent with
the underlying land use entitlement;
• Changing the type of notice that is mailed out to neighbors from a tentative approval to a
notice that an application for a temporary event has been received, and a request for
comments or concerns which may be then considered by the Zoning Administrator prior to a
decision; and
AUGUST 9, 2005 County File#ZT05-0001
Board of Supervisors
Page 3
• Specifying that the Director of Community Development will hear appeals in order to ensure
that the decision on any appeal is made sufficiently in advance of the proposed event date.
IV. ,COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
On July 12, 2005, the County Planning Commission conducted a hearing on the proposed
ordinance. The speakers included interested parties from the Kensington community who
expressed the following:
• The proposed ordinance would allow Mr. Scher to continue to hold musical events at his
property;
• The proposed ordinance would allow up to three events per year for up to 200 - 300 people.
By allowing this many events, year after year, it is no longer a temporary event, but becomes
a permanent use of the land;
• There should be no more than two events in a twelve month period, and the maximum
number of people at an event should not exceed 125. That includes all attendees, staff, and
entertainers for an event.
As part of the motion to recommend that the Board adopt the proposed Temporary Events
Ordinance, the Commission (4 to 3 vote) made the following changes:
• The Grounds for Mandatory Denial should be amended to include the provision of denial if
there are any outstanding fines for previous events held on the subject property.
• Staff should schedule a public hearing before the County Planning Commission in 12 to 14
months to review the implementation and effect of the proposed ordinance.
Following the Planning Commission decision, additional correspondence has been received (refer to
Exhibit V of this report). This section also includes correspondence that was received at the County
Planning Commission's July 12, 2005 hearing.
August 9,2005 D.6
Temporary Events Ordinance
ADDENDUM
The Board of Supervisors considered the recommendation of the County Planning Commission to adopt an
amendment to the County Ordinance Code to regulate temporary events that take place on private property
in the unincorporated area of the County and that generate or invite considerable public participation.
Catherine Kutsuris, Community Development Department, presented the staff report. County Counsel
Silvano Marchesi, and Deputy County Counsel Tom Geiger were attendance to assist the Board with any
questions regarding the proposed ordinance.
The following persons presented testimony:
Kevin Burns,resident of El Cerrito; David Eichorn,resident of Kensington;
Leonard Schwartzburd,resident of Kensington; Timothy Hoyer,resident of Kensington;
Harry Thatyer,Kensington resident; Jane Folger-Brown,Kensington resident;
Robert Giusti,Kensington resident; Mervyn F.Silverman,M.D.,Crockett resident;
Jack Walker,Kensington resident; Lorraine Osmundson,Kensington;
Linda Lipscomb,Kensington resident; Bill McNab,Kensington resident;
Stuart Fishman,Rhythmic Concepts Inc; Brian Stone,Benicia;
Lisa Larkins,Kensington resident; Danny Scher,Kensington resident;
Kimberly Disney,Kensington resident; Connie Martinez,San Jose;
Jim Hogan,Gamelan Sekar Jaya,El Sobrante; Amy Osterholm,Kensington resident
Ted Groom,Kensington resident; Ray Barraza,Kensington Municipal Advisory Council;
Gloria Morrison,Kensington resident; Andrew Paul Gutierrez,-Kensington resident;
Lynn Wolter,Kensington resident; Linnea Due,Kensington resident;
Joan Gallegos,Kensington resident;
The following person did not wish to speak,but left written comments for the Board's consideration:
Anna Gregorian,El Cerrito resident
Written correspondence or notes were received from the following:
Senator Tom Torlakson,Seventh District;
Barry D.Garfield,Chief of Police,Kensington Police Department,
Brian E.Stone,Successor Trustee,Stone Living Trust;
Peter Sheehan,Attorney at Law,representing Coventry Neighborhood Group;
Jack Walker,Kensington resident.
The Chair returned the matter to the Board for discussion.
The Supervisors commended Supervisor Gioia and staff for their dedicated efforts on a very difficult issue.
The Board discussed with staff the issues of fee, cost recovery, and ordinance enforcement.
Supervisor Piepho requested a modification to the ordinance to include a provision that no permit be issued
in an instance that would allow two events to occur within a 7 day period, (noting for a clarifying example,
that a Saturday to Saturday time frame would be considered 8 days); and requested of staff that the
appropriate Municipal Advisory Councils or similar local governing Advisory body of the relevant area be
notified of the application for permit, and that a review of the ordinance be conducted in 6 months in
addition to the 12 month review recommended in the Board Order.
August 9,2005 D.6
Temporary Events Ordinance
Supervisor Uilkema noted that in her view,the ordinance would in effect legalize a commercial use in a
residentially zoned area, and therefore she would not be able to support it's adoption. She further noted
that in her opinion,three events per year did not meet her definition of a temporary event,but rather would
be a commercial use.
Supervisor Uilkema commended Danny Scher on his philanthropist efforts.
Supervisor Gioia requested additional language to address any event intended for an excess of 200 people,
concerning maximum occupancy and number of attendees at a temporary event of 200-300 people: the
zoning administrator may consider the lot size of the event venue,proximity of surrounding residences,
density of the underlying zoning district, location and size of any buildings between the venue and
surrounding properties, and proximity to sensitive noise receptors.
Counsel opined that in the case of an event requiring a permit,where none was obtained, Code
Enforcement could close the event; in those cases in which an event would require a permit,none was
applied for, and Code Enforcement had advance knowledge of the event(of a type requiring a permit), an
injunction could be requested.
County Counsel Silvano Marchesi brought to the attention of the Board a procedural concern involving
modification of the proposed ordinance. He noted that the Planning Commission had made
recommendations on the draft ordinance, and that the commission had not had an opportunity to consider
the amendments proposed today, and therefore suggested the Board may want to consider returning the
ordinance, as amended today, for consideration and recommendations. Dennis Barry, Director of
Community Development, concurred.
Chair Uilkema closed the public hearing.
As motioned by Supervisor Gioia and seconded by Supervisor Glover the Board took the following actions:
REFERRED the proposed temporary events ordinance, as amended today,to the Planning Commission for
consideration; staff is DIRECTED to notify the appropriate Municipal Advisory Councils or similar local
governing advisory body of the relevant area notified of an application for permit; and staff is DIRECTED
to conduct a 6 month review of the ordinance in addition to a 12 month review.
(Ayes: I, III, IV,V; Noes: II;Absent: None; Abstain: None)
Exhibit I
County Planning Commission
Resolution No. 23-2005
Exhibit II
Temporary Events Ordinance
10,
(Ordinance No,, 2005-25
)
ORDINANCE NO. 2005-25
TEMPORARY EVENTS
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows (omitting the parenthetical footnotes
from the official text of the enacted or amended provisions of the County Ordinance Code):
SECTION L SUMMARY. This ordinance establishes procedures for evaluating, permitting, and
regulating short-term activities and events that are conducted on or upon private property and generate
or invite considerable public participation, invitees, or spectators.
SECTION 11. Chapter 82-44 is added to the County Ordinance Code, to read:
Chapter 82-44
TEMPORARY EVENTS
Article 82-44.2
General Provisions
82-44,202 Title. This chapter is known as the Temporary Events Ordinance of Contra Costa County.
(Ord. 2005-25 § 2.)
82-44.204 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish procedures for evaluating, permitting,
and regulating short-term activities and events that are conducted on private property and generate or
invite considerable public participation, invitees, or spectators. Because these land uses are temporary,
they have negligible or no permanent effect on the environment, and their potential impact on adjoining
properties is either minimal or can be offset by conditions. The procedures authorize the zoning
administrator to approve permits for temporary events and to require permit conditions or deny permits
when necessary to protect the public. The procedures are necessary to protect and promote the
health, safety, and welfare of the public, temporary event participants, and nearby residents. The
procedures are intended to minimize the impacts of temporary events on the normal free flow of
vehicular and pedestrian traffic, to minimize the impacts of noise from temporary events, to protect the
safety of property, and to minimize disturbance and inconvenience to neighbors, neighboring properties
and neighborhoods. (Ord. 2005-25 § 2.)
82-44.206 Definitions. For purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases have the
following meanings:
(a) "Event"means an occasion on private property organized for a particular and limited purpose
and time and is either: (1) open to the public; or(2) an organized outdoor assemblage that
exceeds 75 or more persons at a venue in a residential zoning district or at a residence in any
ORDINANCE NO. 2005-25
permits, environmental health permits, and state Alcoholic Beverage Control permits.
(b) An event held in a public right-of-way, including a funeral procession or parade,provided all
other permits and licenses required by this code or state law are obtained, including
encroachment permits, environmental health pen-nits, and state Alcoholic Beverage Control
permits.
(c) An activity conducted by a governmental agency acting within the scope of its authority.
(d) Weddings,birthday parties, graduation parties, or other family events held at a private
residence,provided that no more than four of these events are held within a 12-month period.
(e) An event held at a members-only non-residential facility where the only participants are
members and their guests.
(f) An event held at a school,provided the event is consistent with the underlying land use
entitlement.
(g) An event held at a religious entity's facility,provided the event is consistent with the underlying
land use entitlement.
(h) Afilm-making activity for which a filming permit has been obtained in accordance with Chapter
56-8 of this code.
(i) Car washes for fund raising purposes,provided that the car washes are held on private
property other than a residence, are limited to a maximum of two days each month for each
sponsoring organization, and are sponsored by an educational, charitable, religious, or nonprofit
group-
(j) Garage sales held at a private residence,provided that sales occur no more than four times
within a 12-month period per residence, for a maximum of two consecutive days each.
(k) Areal estate open house,where a property is for sale, lease or rent. (Ord. 2005-25 § 2.)
82-44.406 Application and Review.
(a) Any person, entity,business, or group wishing to hold, sponsor, conduct, operate or maintain a
temporary event shall submit a completed temporary event permit application to the community
development department. The application form shall be signed and verified by the applicant, if
an individual; a general partner authorized to sign on behalf of a partnership; an officer or
director authorized to sip on behalf of a corporation; or a participant authorized to sip on
ORDINANCE NO. 2005-25
3
(G) The location of the event will substantially interfere with a previously granted
encroachment permit or with any previously scheduled construction or
maintenance work scheduled to take place upon or along County streets.
(H) The proposed event conflicts with an underlying land use entitlement for the
property.
(1) When the grounds for denial of an application for permit specified in
subsections (2)(D)through(2)(G), above, can be mitigated by altering the date,
time,, duration, size,, route, or location of the event, the zoning administrator shall
conditionally approve the application upon the applicant's acceptance of
conditions.for permit issuance instead of denying the application. If the grounds
for denial cannot be mitigated by imposing conditions, the permit will be denied.
(3) Grounds for Mandatory Denial. Notwithstanding sections 82-44.406(g)(1) and(g)(2),
the zoning administrator shall deny an application for a temporary event permit for
either of the following reasons:
(A) A temporary event permit previously issued within the preceding 24 months to
the applicant or for the specific private property venue was revoked.,
(B) Failure to pay an outstanding fine owed for an event previously held at the
venue or owed by the applicant for any event held at any location.
(h) Following the community development department's receipt of a temporary event permit
application, the department will mail to property owners within 500 feet of the venue a notice
that an application has been received and that the zoning administrator will decide whether to
issue a permit. The notice will solicit comments on the proposed event. Following the zoning
administrator's decision on the permit application, the decision will be mailed to property
owners within 500 feet of the venue. The decision maybe appealed to the community
development director within seven calendar days of the mailing date of the notice. A decision is
final if no appeal is filed within seven calendar days after the decision is mailed. An appeal must
be in writing, state the grounds for appeal, and include an appeal fee. Upon receipt of a
properly filed appeal, the community development department will schedule the appeal before
the community development director and notify the appellants and applicant of the hearing date
and time. The community development director's decision following an appeal hearing is final
for purposes of exhaustion of administrative remedies. (Ord. 2005-25 § 2.)
82-44.408 Conditions.
(a) The zoning administrator may condition the issuance of a temporary events permit by imposing
ORDINANCE NO. 2005-25
7
(13) Requirements for reducing, reusing and recycling solid waste materials generated at a
large event or large venue. "Large event" and"large venue"have the meaning set forth
in Public Resources Code section 42648.
(14) Conditions limiting the duration of time and hours of the event(including the time to
prepare and clean up the venue) in order to minimize impacts on traffic,parking,public
health and safety, and minimize disturbance or inconvenience to the neighbors and the
neighborhood.
(15) Time,place, and manner restrictions on the use of amplified sound. The use of
amplified sound is prohibited in a residential district unless allowed as a condition of a
temporary event permit.
(b) When a temporary event permit is granted for any event in a residential zoning district or at a
residence in any other zoning district, it is granted subject to the following conditions:
(1) The event shall not generate or emit any noise or sound that exceeds any of the levels
fw
sspecified in the table below measured at the exterior of any dwelling unit located on
another residential property. The noise generated or emitted shall not exceed the levels
specified in the table for the duration of time specified in the table. Exterior noise levels
shall be measured with a sound level meter. The permit shall incorporate the applicable
"allowable exterior noise levels" specified in the table into the permit conditions only for
the duration of time allowed for the event by the permit. For example, if the permit
provides that an event shall end by 7 p.m., the "allowable exterior noise levels"allowed
between 9 a.m. and 8 p.m. shall be incorporated into the conditions,,but the event must
end by 7 p.m.
ALLOWABLE EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS
Cumulative
Duration of Noise 9 a.m.minutes per hour 60 dBA 8 p.m. 8 p.m., — 10 p0mo
55 dBA
30
15 minutes per hour 65 dBA 60 dBA
5 minutes per hour 70 dBA 65 dBA__
I minute per hour 75 dBA 70 dBA
Level not to be exceeded at any time 80 dBA 75 dBA
(2) Amplified sound is prohibited after 8 p.m. Sundays through Thursdays and after 10
ORDINANCE NO. 2005-25
9
(6) Two or more events, with 200 or more people present at each event, will be held at a
Idistrictvenue in a residential zoning district or at a residence in any other zon'ng within a
calendar year.
(7) A temporary event permit previously issued to the applicant or for the venue was
revoked within the preceding 24 months.
(b) It is a violation of this section if the number of people present at an event exceeded a size
threshold specified in subsection (a) above, and a land use permit was not obtained before the
event. For purposes of this section, "the number of people present at an event"means the total
of all attendees, invitees, caterers, event monitors, security, and all other persons who are at the
event venue.
(c) If a land use permit or building permit is required for a structure associated with a temporary
event, then no event maybe held at the venue without a land use permit.
(d) An application for a land use permit will be decided in accordance with article 26-2.20 of this
code. (Ord. 2005-25 § 2.)
82-44.416 Enforcement.
(a) An event maybe monitored by law enforcement and code enforcement officials to determine
compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit.
(b) A temporary event permit maybe revoked for any violation of any term or condition that
occurs at an event or for any other reason specified in Section 26-2.2022. A revocation may
be appealed to the board of supervisors within seven days of the revocation.
(c) The County may enforce this division by any remedy allowed under this Ordinance Code or
any other remedy allowed by law. (Ord. 2005-25 § 2.)
Article 82-44.6
Fees and Costs
82-44.602 Application Fee. A nonrefundable application fee for a temporary event permit shall be
paid when the application is submitted. An application for a temporary event permit is not complete
until the application fee is paid. (Ord. 2005-25 § 2.)
82-44.604 General.
(a) Pen-nit application fees, regulatory fees, inspection fees, and appeal fees will be in amounts
ORDINANCE NO. 2005-25
11
Exhibit III
Staff Report and Rcommendateions to the
County Planning Commission, July 12 - 2005
Agenda Item # 5
Community Development Contra Costa County
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, JULY 12, 2005
I. INTRODUCTION
AMENDMENT TO THE COUNTY ORDINANCE CODE THAT ADDS CHAPTER
82-4411, TEMPORARY EVENTS. (COUNTY FILE #ZTOS-0001): County initiated
proposal to adopt an amendment to the County Ordinance Code to regulate temporary
events that take place on private property and generate or invite considerable public
participation. The proposed ordinance will apply to private property in all zones within
the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County.
II. RECOMMENDATION
That the County Planning Commission:
A. Adopt the finding that the project is exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act pursuant to Section 15304 (e); Minor temporary use of land having
negligible or no permanent effects on the environment, including carnivals.,, sales of
Christmas trees, etc.
B. Recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt Zoning Text Amendment, County
file #ZTO50001 that adds Chapter 82-44, Temporary Events, to the County Ordinance
Code (Title 8).
III. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The history of the proposed ordinance -dates back several years. As a result of citizen's
complaints about outdoor musical concerts in a residential neighborhood located in the
Kensington area, the County has worked to establish an ordinance that would protect
neighborhoods while balancing homeowners' rights to enjoy their property.
The purpose of the proposed ordinance is to establish a temporary event permitting
process by which the Zoning Administrator may condition the issuance of a temporary
events permit by imposing reasonable requirements concerning the time, place, and
manner of the event, and by imposing any requirements that are necessary to protect the
health, safety and welfare of the public, temporary events participants and nearby
residents. The proposed ordinance identifies events that are not subject to review,, those
that require a temporary events permit, and those that require a land use permit. The
S-2
permitting process and the grounds for approval and denial of temporary event permits
are also specified.
The proposed temporary events ordinance was circulated fora 30 day review and
comment period to the Municipal Advisory Councils and other organizations that
frequently interact with the Community Development Department. The proposed
ordinance, which is attached, has undergone significant revision based on the comments
that were received.
N. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE
The proposed temporary events ordinance sets three general categories of projects:
• those that are considered"events" and require a temporary event permit;
• those that require a land use permit
• those that are exempt from the permitting provisions of the chapter.
The proposed ordinance defines an event as,
An occasion on private property organized for a particular and
limited purpose and time and is either.- (1) open to the public; or
(2) an organized outdoor assemblage that exceeds 75 or more
persons at a venue in a residential zoning district or at a residence
in any other zoning district, or 150 or more persons at a venue in
any other zoning district. Events include athletic events, arts and
crafts shows, garden parties, carnivals, circuses, fairs, festivals,
musical concerts and other cultural or live entertainment events,
and swap meets. "Persons at a venue 301 means the total of all
attendees, invitees, caterers, event monitors, security, and all other
persons who are at an event venue.
This text differentiates those events that are held at a residence or in a residential zoning
district from those events held in other zoning districts. Specifically, a non public event
held at a residence or at a residential zoning district is exempt from the provisions of the
ordinance if 75 or fewer persons are present. In any other zoning district, the proposed
ordinance would not apply to private events for which up to 150 persons attended.
The proposed ordinance further identifies an "event" as one that occurs for up to one day
at a residence or in a residential zoning district, or up to three consecutive days at any
other location.
Exemptions:
The proposed ordinance is intended to apply to public events and private events of a
certain size that are held at residential and non residential locations such as fairs,
festivals, carnivals, crafts shows, music concerts and other live entertainment events. The
ordinance is not intended to duplicate the review of other public agencies which own or
S-3
operate facilities, or to regulate activities that are conducted in the public right of way
(e.g. parades). Section 8.2-44.404 details those activities which are exempt includinor:
•
An event held on public property, in a public facility, or in a public
park, provided all other permits and licenses required by this code or
state law are obtained, including encroachment permits,
environmental health permits, and state Alcoholic Beverage Control
permits.
• An event held in a public right-of-way, including a funeral procession
or parade, provided all other permits and licenses required by this
code or state law are obtained, including encroachment permits,
environmental health permits, and state Alcoholic Beverage Control
permits.
• An activity conducted by a governmental agency acting within the
scope of its authority.
• Weddings, birthday parties, graduation parties, or other family events
held at a private residence, provided that no more than four of these
A
events are held within a 12-month period.
• An event held at a members-only non-residential facility where the
only participants are members and their guests.
Permit Process:
For those activities which both fall within the definition of an "event" and which are
otherwise not exempt from the permitting requirements, a temporary events permit will
be required. Section 82-44.406 details the information that would be filed as part of the
application. This includes the number of attendees., an estimate of the number vehicles, a
description of any sound amplification, as well as parking, traffic control and sanitation
provisions.
It is expected that many of the applicants will be volunteers or representatives of
community organizations. As such, the steps for the public notification and appeal were
developed with the intent of providing a streamlined -process while maintaining public
notification and input. The ordinance requires the application be submitted 45 days in
advance of the event' and specifies that the Zoning Administrator will administratively
decide the application. Notice to property owners within 500 feet of the site would be
sent to solicit comments on the proposal prior to the decision. These same property
owners would also receive a notice of the Zoning Administrator's decision. A seven day
appeal process has been provided. You will note that the proposed ordinance assigns the
decision on appeals to the Director of Community Development. This assignment has
been proposed because of the time delays that would be created by scheduling an appeal
before either the Planning Commission or the Board. The time requirements for
scheduling a public hearing for an appeal would have the result of causing the denial of
any project for which an appeal has been scheduled because such an appeal hearing could
not be scheduled in advance of the event. The other alternative to utilizing an
The Code provides that this time requirement may be reduced by the Community Development Director.
S-4
administrative appeal process would be to substantially increase the application period.
This was determined not to be a reasonable choice because many of the events that would
be covered by the proposed ordinance would not be able to be held if a three to four
month review process was required. Revocation of permits, on the other hand, would be
scheduled before the Board of Supervisors for decision since a revocation proceeding
would not customarily have the same time constraints.
The grounds for approval and denial are specified in the proposed ordinance (refer to
Section 82.44-406 (g). The Zoning Administrator may deny a permit if the event will
substantially interrupt traffic, be detrimental to property in the area or otherwise
unreasonably affect nearby neighbors' use of their property. A violation of a term or
condition of a temporary event permit issued to the applicant or for the same venue
within the preceding 24 months is also a ground for denial.
Noise Limitations:
The proposed ordinance sets maximum allowable exterior noise levels. These are
included in Section 82-44.408 (b). It should be noted that these noise levels are consistent
with noise standards that are in effect in surrounding municipalities and, in some cases,,
are more conservative. For example, the City of Richmond allows an exterior noise level
of 60 dBA during a normal day from 7:00 am until 10:00 pm in a residential
neighborhood. This noise levet, 60 dBA, is consistent with the standard used for a
temporary event in the proposed ordinance.2 In other words the noise limitations for a
temporary event provided in this proposed ordinance are consistent with the general noise
limitations for the City.
The City of Albany allows 55 dBA from the hours of 7:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. in
residential districts. This applies to exterior noise levels that occur during a normal day.
The proposed ordinance allows for an exterior noise level of 60 dBA during temporary
events. Staff feels that if the allowed noise level is, for instance, 55 dBA during a normal
day in a residential neighborhood, that 60 dBA is an acceptable noise level during a.
special event that may occur up to three times per year. The fact that this is a reasonable
noise level during temporary events was confirmed by an acoustical engineer that is
retained by the County.
Requirement for Land Use Permits:
The proposed ordinance requires land use permits when either the size, the number of
events, or the length of events reach certain thresholds including:
• More than 300 people will be present at an event in a residential zoning district or
at a residence in any other zoning district;
2 The standard used for this comparison was the requirement that 60 dBA is limited to no more than 3)0 minutes per
hour from to 9:00 am to 8:00 pm. The proposed ordinance allows noise at higher dBAs(65—70)for 15 minutes per
hour and 5 minutes per hour respectively. Exterior noise levels are lower from 8:00 pm to 10:00 pm.Refer to
Section 82-44.408(b).
S-5
• Two or more events, with 200 or more people present at each event,, will be held
at a venue in a residential zoninatn district or at a residence in any other zoning
district within a calendar year;
• Four or more events Will be held at a venue in a calendar year;
• An event will last more than one day at a residence in a residential zoning district,
t-15
or more than three consecutive days at any other location.
Land use permits are also required if a temporary event permit was revoked in the
preceding 24 months.
V. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL-QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
The project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15304 (e); Minor temporary use of
land having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment, including carnivals,
sales of Christmas trees, etc.
V1. AGENCY COMMENTS
A copy of the proposed temporary events ordinance was circulated to all the Municipal
Advisory Councils and other organizations that frequently interact with the Community
Development Department for review and comment on April 18, 2005. Exhibit B includes
all of the comments that have been received since the first distribution in April of this
year. A summary of the comments and the staff responses are provided below.
A. Kensington Property Owners Association, letter dated June, 13, 2005
Summary of Comment: Limit the number of events that are allowed with a permit
to two (instead of four), and limit the maximum number of participants to 150 in
a residential district.
Staff RThe revised draft of the ordinance reduced the number of events
that are allowed with a temporary events permit from four' to three events in a
calendar year, while a land use permit is required if two or more events have 200
or more people present at each event.
Summary of Comment: The applicant should be required to pay for enforcement
of the ordinance.
Sta RgMonse: There are a number of actions that could be taken should the
conditions of permit be violated. This includes the denial of afuture permit or the
revocation of a permit (the latter could be used when multiple events were
covered under the same temporary event permit). Section 82-44.416 identifies the
enforcement provisions of the code.
Should the Zoning Administrator,for example, determine that noise monitoring is
an appropriate condition to be placed on a particular temporary event permit, we
would expect that this same permit would be conditioned to provide for such
S-6
monitoring- However, we cannot agree that the ordinance would provide, or
would require, an applicant to fund monitors to verify compliance with each
permit requirement. Similarly, we would not expect an applicant to pay for the
cost of emergency or law enforcement services that are normally provided to the
area.
Summary of Comment: All community-sponsored events and private events that
are held in an existing public or religious meeting facility should be exempt.
Sta Response: The revised draft of the ordinance provides for an exemption to
public facilities in recognition of the fact that public agencies otherwise regulate
land and/or facilities under their ownership. Events at religious facilities that are
otherwise consistent with the site's entitlement have been added to the list of
exemptions.
B. Crockett Improvement Association, letter dated Mav 25, 2005:
Summary of Comment: The proposed ordinance would place a burden on their
19
community in terms of fees and lengthy lead times. These two factors would, in
their opinion, discourage civic pride and participation.
Sta Response: We concur with the comments of the Crockett Improvement
Association. In response to these concerns, an exemption has been added which
would exclude from the permitting requirements events held on public property, in
a public facility or in a public park. In addition, events such as parades, which
are held in the public right of way are also exempt. The permitting and appeal
process has also been modified to reduce the time frames. The Department will
be proposing an amendment to the fee ordinance that will be considered along
with the Planning Commission's recommendation on the Temporary Events
Ordinance. Staff will include the Crockett Improvement Associations' concern
about this issue in the report for the Board. The Department shares the
Association's concern about the potential impact of a fee on local community
events, particularly those that are proposed by a volunteer group. The
recommendation from the Department. to the Board will be cognizant of this issue.
C. Crockett Community Foundation, letter dated May 18, ?005
Summary of Comment: The proposed ordinance places an undue burden upon
organizations involved in fund raising activities by establishing an additional
layer of bureaucracy that includes excessive procedures and faulty appeal
procedures. In general, the proposed ordinance will have a detrimental effect on
the community. For instance, this ordinance would adversely impact our
Memorial Day event our local historical society and museum hosts so that the
community may commemorate our veterans, living and dead. Included in this
event is a Big Band concert held in a privately owned park during the afternoon.
No admission is charged for this event nor is any money raised, and the people
who help to put on the event are volunteers.
S-7
Staff Response: As a result of these comments, the proposed ordinance has been
modified to specifically exempt events held in a public facility or a public park. In
addition, events that are conducted by a governmental agency are also exempt.
The permitting process has been streamlined to reflect that many of the applicants
will be community volunteers.
D. Town of Discovery Bay, letter dated Mav 11, 2005:
Comment: Who will enforce this ordinance?
Staff Response: The proposed ordinance would be part of Title 8 of the County
Ordinance Code, and as such would be enforced by the Building Inspection
Department, Code Enforcement Division. Lam, enforcement agencies may also
enforce the ordinance as appropriate.
Comment: What device(s)will the County use to measure the noise levels?
Sta Re According to section 82-44.408 (b) I of the proposed ordinance
the device used to measure the noise levels will be a sound level meter. Noise
monitoring will be required in those cases where the Zoning Administrator finds
that it is appropriate.
Comment: The Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District would like
to be notified of any and all events that will be taking place in their community.
Staff Response: The proposed ordinance specifies that a request for comments
will be provided to property owners within 500 feet of the venue. These same
property owners will receive a notice of the Zoning Administrator's decision on
the permit application. The proposed ordinance does not include a provision that
requires notification of municipal advisory councils or community service
districts. The Zoning Administrator may consult with Public Works, Fire and law
enforcement officials and impose reasonable conditions requested by those
officials.
E. Kensington Fire Protection District. letter dated Mav 27, 2005.0
Summary of Comment: The Fire District has concerns about large congregations
of people, in both commercial and residential areas that might overwhelm their
resources in terms of traffic or parking that affects emergency response times, the
need for medical aid,, evacuation plans, and for a fire watch.
S-8
However, the District stated these concerns appear to be addressed in the
ordinance in the following sections:
82-44.406 ADnlication and Review— (g)
(2) Grounds for Denial—
(D) Another temporary event permit application has been received prior in
time, or has already been approved, to hold another event at the same
time and place requested by the applicant, or so close in time and place
as to cause undue traffic congestion.
(E) The time, route, characteristics, or size of the event will substantially
interrupt the safe and orderly movement of traffic contiguous to the event
site or route, or disrupt the use of a street at a time when it is usually
subject to great traffic congestion, or be detrimental to property or
improvements in the surrounding area, or otherwise unreasonably and
adversely affect nearby neighbors' use of their property. In making a
determination under this subsection, the zoning administrator will
consider the public health, safety and welfare of the neighbors and the
applicant, and will strive to achieve a reasonable balance among these
factors.
(F) The concentration of persons, animals, or vehicles at the site of the event,
or the assembly and disbanding areas around an event, will prevent
proper police, fire, or ambulance services to the venue and areas
contiguous to the event.
2. 82-44.408 Conditions— (a)
(4) Conditions concerning parking, including but not limited to requirements
for the use of shuttles from parking areas to the venue.
(5) Conditions concerning traffic control, including but not limited to
requirements for the use of traffic cones or barricades.
(6) Requirements for provision of first aid or sanitary facilities.
(7) Requirements for use of event monitors and security responsible for crowd
control,fire watch, general security, and evacuation of occupants.
(8) Conditions concerning maximum occupancy and number of attendees,
based on the size of the venue andfor purposes of minimizing impacts on
traffic, parking, public health and safety, and minimizing disturbance or
inconvenience to neighbors and the neighborhood
S-9
3. 82-44.414 Land Use Permit Required(a)
(S) More than 3 00 people will be present at an event.
(6) Two or more events, with 200 or more people present at each event, will
be held at a venue within a calendar year.
Summary of Comment: The Fire Department also stated they must be notified
when an application for temporary event is filed for and that all the concerns
listed above must be satisfied.
Staff Response: The Zoning Administrator may consult with the Fire District and
impose reasonable conditions requested bY those officials.
F. Parkmead Community Association. letter dated Mgy 25, 2005:
Summary of Comment: Would the neighborhood meetings that they currently
hold at the local church require a permit under the proposed ordinance?
Staff Response: The revised draft of the ordinance exempts events held at
churches under Section 82-44.404 (g). However, this does not exempt activities
that would otherwise require an amendment to their land use permit.
Summary of Comment: Would their annual block party be required to obtain a
temporary event peri it under the proposed ordinance?
Staff Response: In terms of the annual block party, there is an exemption in the
revised draft of the ordinance, 82-44.404 (b) Exemptions that excludes from the
requirement to obtain permits those events that are held in a public right-of-way
provided all other permits are obtained. The Parkmead Community Association
currently obtains permits from the Public Works Department for their annual
blockparty and they would be required to continue doing so.
Summary of Comment: Would their annual neighborhood-wide garage sale be
exempt under Section 82-44.404 (j) that exempts garage sales at private
residences provided that no more than four sales occur within a 12-month period
of time, for a maximum of two consecutive days each.
Staff Response: The annual neighborhood-wide garage sale would be exempt
under the proposed ordinance, under Section 82-44.404 (j). This section provides
an exemption ftom the requirement to obtain a temporary event permit, garage
sales held at a private residence provided that they occur no more than four times
within a 12-month period.
S-10
Summaryof Comment: There is no provision that the Zoning Administrator's
tentative decision be made in a timely manner. If an appeal must be heard at the
"next available Board of Supervisors meeting" there should be a requirement that
the tentative decision be made at least one week prior to the event.
Sta Response: The proposed ordinance has been revised so that the public
comment period has been shortened from 10 days to 7 days, and instead of an
appeal being heard by the Board of Supervisors at the next available Board
hearing, the Community Development Director will decide appeals. Refer to
Section IX, Staff Analysis/Discussion (3), which occurs later in this report, for
further discussion.
G. Blackhawk Police Advisory Committee,,-letter dated May 161,,-2005:
Summary of Comment: Within Section 82-44.408 (a), it states that the Zoning
Administrator may consult with Public Works, Fire and law enforcement officials
and impose reasonable conditions requested by those officials. The Blackhawk
Police Advisory Committee requests that ordinance be changed so that the Zoning
Administrator shall consult with these public entities since many temporary
events inherently involve issues and expertise that are within the jurisdiction of
one or more of these entities.
Sta Response: According to section 82-44.408 (a) of the revised draft, the
Zoning Administrator has the ability to condition the event by imposing
reasonable requirements concerning the time, place, and manner of the-event for
the protection of public health and safety. Further, the proposed code provides
that the Zoning Administrator may impose reasonable conditions requested by the
public works, fire and/or law enforcement officials. If a Zoning Administrator
determines that consultation with another public entity is necessary, there is
sufficient time provided in the review process fortimely consultation. It may not
be necessary to consult with other entities in some cases.
Summaryof Comment: The Committee also recommends that the notification of
surrounding properties should be within 500 feet of the venue, instead of 300 feet
as currently written in the ordinance, since the impacts of the event (e.g. noise,
parking and traffic) go beyond 300 feet.
Staff Response: Staff concurs with this comment. The revised draft extends the
notification to those property owners within 500 feet of the venue (refer to Section
82-44.406[h]).
Summary of Comment: The hours during which exterior noised levels are
allowed under Section 8.2-44.408 (b) (1) should be shortened by I hour. For
instance, exterior noise levels on Fridays should be changed from 10:00 p.m. to
9:00 p.m. Similarly, amplified sound, which is currently proposed to be prohibited
after 10:00 p.m. on Fridays, Saturdays, and holidays should be changed to 9:00
p.m.
S-11
Sta„ffResponse: The Zoning Administrator has the ability to place restrictions on
the use of amplified sound, including the time, place and manner, under Section
82-44.408 (14). This would include limiting the hours of amplified sound by
restricting the hours of the event. The hours listed in the ordinance text are the
maximum allowed.
H. Kensington Municipal Advisory Council: Comments from their April 21. 2005
meeting.
I Summary of General Comments
Summary of Comments: The ordinance should err on the side of
protecting neighbors.
Staff Response: ?'he proposed ordinance provides measures to protect the
neighborhood by giving the Zoning Administrator the ability to condition
the issuance of a temporary event permit by imposing reasonable
requirements concerning the time, place and manner of the event, and by
imposing any requirements that are necessary to protect the health, safety
and welfare of the public.
The proposed ordinance also provides for, under Section 82-44.406 (g)
(3), the mandatory denial of a temporary event permit when a temporary
event permit previously issued within the preceding 24 months to the
applicant or for the specific private property venue was revoked.
It should be noted that the noise standards provided in the proposed
ordinance have been conservatively set. In other words, these standards
are more protective of the residential uses.
2. Summary of Comments Regarding Section 82-44.204., Purpose
Summary of Comments: The purpose of the ordinance should be expanded
to incorporate more specific language regarding minimizing disturbance
and inconvenience to the neighborhood.
Staff Response: Section 82-44.204, Purpose, of the proposed ordinance
now incorporates language that states; "The procedures are intended to
minimize the impacts of temporary events on the normal fi°ee flow of
vehicular and pedestrian traffic, to minimize the impacts of noise from
temporary events, to protect the safety of property, and to minimize
disturbance and inconvenience to neighbors, neighboring properties and
neighborhoods. YY
C-3
AW
S-12
3. Summary of Comments Regarding Section 82-44206., Definitions
Summary of Comments: The ordinance should state how long a temporary
event is and define the maximum number of persons on site at a venue.
Staff Response: The revised draft provides that a temporary event means
an event that occurs for up to one day at a residence or in a residential
4
zoni I ng district, or Ip u to three consecutive days at any other location (refer
to Section 82-44.206(e)).
The proposed ordinance has also been revised to clarify the number of
persons at the site. Specifically, Section 82-44.206,(a), provides that the
total number of people present at an event means the total of all attendees,
invitees, caterers, event monitors, security, and all others who are at the
event venue. These totals would not include the people that would either
come before an event to set it up and then leave prior to the event, or those
that come to the site for cleanup at the event's conclusion.
It should be noted, that the total number of people on site at the venue
would include the total number that visited the venue during the day. For
example, if an applicant proposed an event that occurred in shifts
throughout a day, the total number that went to the site (excluding the
setup and cleanup provisions explained above) would be included.
4. Summary of Comments Regarding Section 82-44.404, Exemptions
Summary of Comments: The ordinance should exempt events that are held
at a religious facility, school or public park.
Sta ff Response: According to section 82-44.404 (a), (f) and(g) the revised
draft exempts events held on public property, in a public.facility, and/or at
a public park. Events held at a private school or religious facility would
also be exempt if consistent with the underlying land use entitlement for
the site.
5. Summary of Comments 'Regarding Section 82-44.406, Application and
Review
We are concerned that under section 82-44-406 (g) (1), Grounds for
approval or conditional approval, that the reasons are not stated as to how
the decision will be made or what the Zoning Administrator will consider
in makinerL= a determination for the issuance of a temporary event permit.
Staff Response: The proposed Ordinance includes both the grounds for
approval and the grounds for denial. In addition, the text has been
modified to provide the for notice and the opportunity for comment from
A
those property owners within 500 feet of the site prior to the Zoning
AW
S-13
Administrator's decision. Staff believes that these sections of the
proposed ordinance are sufficient for a Zoning Administrator to render
decisions.
6. Summaryof Comments Regarding Section 82-44.410. Duration
In section 82-44.410 (b) we think it is important to state that if a
temporary event is issued up to four events, each event must meet the
conditions imposed or subsequent permitted events may be revoked, per
82-44.416 (b).
Staff Response: According to section 82-44.416 (b), a temporary event
permit may be revoked for any violation of any term or condition that
occurs at an event In the case of one permit for multiple events, this
applies to subsequent events.
7. Summary of Comments Regardin Section 82-44.414, Land Use Permit
Required.
The maximum number of events that are allowed in one year without the
issuance of a land use permit should be reduced and there should be a
greater time between events without a land use permit.
Staff Response: The revised draft, under section 82-44.414 (a) (1), reduces
the numberof events that may be held in a 12 month period from four
events to three events before a land use permit is required. In addition,
only two events may be held at a venue within a 45 day period without
triggering the requirement for a land use permit.
Comment: The number of people on site at an event should be reduced
and the number of people allowed at an event without a land use permit
should not exceed 100.
Staff Response: The revised draft has clarified that the number of people
at an event includes all attendees, caterers, event monitors, and other
supporting staff. The revised ordinance also reduced the number of events
fi°om four to three.
8. Summary of Comments Regardim Section 82-44.416., Enforcement
The applicant should be fully responsible for monitoring the event
compliance and the applicant should be responsible for enforcement costs.
The County should err on the side of the neighborhood.
:M
Staff RShould the Zoning Administrator determine, for example,
noise monitoring is an appropriate condition to be placed on a particular
temporaiy event permit, we would expect that this same permit would be
S-14
conditioned to provide for such monitoring. However, we cannot agree
that the ordinance would provide, or would require, an applicant to fund
monitors to verify compliance with each permit requirement. Similarly, we
would not expect an applicant to pay for the cost of emergency or lam)
enforcement services that are normally provided to the area. Instead, we
expect that the Zoning Administrator would attach monitoring conditions
as appropriate.
The following letters were received with the package from the above referenced
Kensington Municipal Advisory Council's April 21, 2005 meeting:
0 letter dated, 4/21/2005, from the Coventry Neighborhood Group
0 email dated April 20, 2005, from Marilyn Stollon
0 letter from Jack Walker
0 letter from Leonard Schwartzburd
• email dated May 3, 2005 from Margot Sheffer of the Unitarian Univeralist
Church of Berkeley
• email dated May 6, 2005 from J. Folger Brown
• letter dated May 2.3, 2005 from John McKenna of the Kensington
Improvement Club.
Most of this correspondences came from those who live in close proximity to Mr.
Scher's residence,, the location where several outdoor music concerts were held.
While it is not in the scope of this staff report to deal with the specifics of the
activity at Mr. Scher's property, the letters raise several points which have been
summarized below.
#1* Commercial style concerts are inappropriate in residential neighborhoods,
Staff Res onset Staff agrees that commercial style concerts are generally
not compatible with residential use. The noise standards provided in the,
proposed ordinance are considered to be appropriate for events in
residential areas. Further, the proposed ordinance clearly sets a review
process, provides for public notice and comment, and provides clarity for
A
the type of events that can be allowed in residential and non residential
districts on a temporary basis.
#2: An environmental impact investigation is appropriate for the proposed
ordinance since the net effect would be to change the zoning currently in
place, allowing commercial activities in a residential area.
Staff Response: The proposed ordinance does' not change the zoning The
existing code allows uses which may be commercial in nature in a
residential zoning district when a land use permit is obtained (e.g medical
office, convalescent home., private school). This ordinance specifies those
activities which are considered exempt from the review process, those
which require a temporary event permit and those which require a land
S-15
use permit. Conditions necessary to protect public health and safety, as
well as to minimize the disturbance and inconvenience to neighboring
properties may be applied.
#3: A planned series of commercial style events comprise a planned, long
term land use,not an unconnected one-time event.
Staff Response: According to section 82-44.414 a land use permit is
required for more than three temporary events a year. Staff does not
consider an event that is held for one day up to three times a year to be a
permanent land use, since, in most cases, these types of events are not a
common occurrence. It should be noted, however, that the proposed
ordinance has been revised to require a land use permit if a building
permit is required for a structure associated with the event. This
requirement was added since the issuance of a building permit reflects a
more permanent proposal.
#4: No one would enforce the noise standards established by this ordinance
since first, many of the agencies involved do not have the funding, and
second, the enforcement of these noise standards requires some expertise
that an agency might not have.
Staff' Response: Staff has consulted with a firm that specializes in noise
analysis. This firm confirmed that the equipment and training for noise
monitoring is relatively affordable.
#5: When a block of three events is permitted on one permit there is not
enough time between events to appeal, should the event violate permit
conditions.
Staff Response: We concur that it.is possible that three events may be
approved and that, should there be violations related to the first event,
there may be insufficient time to process a revocation. However, it is
speculative whether or not this will actually occur. Staff has not elected to
alter this section because it is generally preferable to have applicants
disclose all of the events planned. If the concern expressed becomes an
implementation issue, the ordinance could then be considered for
modification. Notwithstanding the amount of time between events, a
neighbor may contact the County regarding permit violations at any time,
by contacting the Code Enforcement Division.
#6: The proposed ordinance removes protections from the neighborhoods
ghborhoods
from commercial activities.
Staff Response: The goal of the proposed ordinance is to establish
protections for the neighborhoods in terms of noise, traffic and
disturbance.
S-16
#7: The appeal process puts neighbors in a defensive position when
41
overturning a decision that has already been made.
SLaff Response: We cannot concur with this statement. The proposed text
includes expanded notification and requests comments prior to a decision.
#8: Amplified music at outdoor events should never be allowed in a
residential district.
Staff Response: The proposed ordinance sets conservative standards for
noise that would be allowed at a residence or in a residential zoning
district.
VII. OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED
A. Danny,Scher, letter dated April.21, 2005
Summary of Comments: The proposed ordinance is too restrictive. For instance,
while one can have control over the number of people at an event, one cannot
have control over things such as traffic conditions, etc.
Staff' Response: While it is true that one cannot control the traffic over the
neighborhood as a whole, one can manage the traffic caused by a temporary
event. Accordingly, in Section 82-44.408 of the revised draft, the Zoning
Administrator may impose reasonable conditions by requiring conditions
concerning traffic control, parking and the use of shuttles from parking areas to
the venue.
Summary of Comment: The proposed ordinance is too punitive. For instance,
your ordinance states that it would be grounds for mandatory denial for a
temporary event permit to twenty-four months if the event violates a permit
condition, such as going over the sound limit.
Staff Response: It is not a mandatory grounds for denial ifpermit conditions are
violated, but according to 82-44.406 (2) (c), it is groundsfor denial, which is a
discretionary.decision.
Summary of Comment: To deny me fundraising use of my home for a full two
years because of one minor incident as mandated in the proposed ordinance,
whether or not I caused it,, abridges by constitutional rights of free speech and
association.
Staff Response: One mino�� incident does not trigge�� mandatory denialfOra 24
month period. What does, according to section 82-=X4.406 (g) (3), is when a
temporary event permit that was issued in the preceding 24 months was revoked.
S-17
at
Summary of Comment: The mandatory denial of a temporary event permit should
not be based on a first offense of a minor provision.
StaffResponse: To reiterate, mandatory denial of a temporary permit is not based
on a first offense, but rather, according to section 82-44.406 (g) (3) grounds for
mandatory denial. Notwithstanding sections 82-44.406 (g)(1) and (g) (2), the
Zoning Administrator shall deny an application for a temporary event when a
temporary event permit previously, issued within the preceding 24 months to the
applicant or, the specific private property venue was revoked.
B. Lewis Stewart. email dated May 26, 2005.
Summary of Comment: It is the consensus of the Port Costa Conservation Society
that this ordinance would be unnecessary layer of red-tape and a time-consuming
requirement already covered by existing County ordinances. We are anon-profit
organization staffed entirely by unpaid volunteers who have fundraisers for the
purpose of restoring the 1911 Port Costa School building for community use, and
we are already in compliance with County standards of public health and safety.
The building, according to Lewis, is used for meetings such as sewer district
meetings, water board meetingsand sometimes the County has meetings in tin;Ink
building. There are two fundraising events per year at the building, one in the
summer,, and one in the winter.
Staff Response: Staff understands the position of the Port Costa Conservation
Society, but the property upon which they hold their events is-not pubic property,
but private property owned by the Society, and is not otherwise exempt.from this
ordinance.
C. Kensington Municipal Advisory Council —Meeting of June 21 2005
The comments from this meeting of the Kensington Municipal Advisory Council
have been addressed in other staff responses to comments in this report with the
exception of the following comment:
41
`There should be a provision that even if all the grounds for approval are met by
the applicant, an administrative permit may be denied if any grounds for denial
are met.'
Sta Response: Notwithstanding grounds for approval, the Zoning Administrator
could deny a permit application based on the "Grounds fog^Denial 15
VIII. ADDITIONAL ISSUES
The proposed ordinance has gone through several modifications as a result of community
feedback. The feedback helped the County craft an ordinance that was more responsive to
the community. The following are some of the important changes that occurred during
the process of writing this proposed ordinance:
S-18
A. Chanainsa the TY-Pe of Notice that is Mailed Out to Neighbors
In an earlier draft of the proposed ordinance the notice that was to be mailed out to
the neighbors was a tentative decision that could be appealed to the Board of
Supervisors within 15 days of the mailing date of the notice. The County received
comments from the public expressing concern that, as written,the proposed ordinance
would not give the neighborhood an opportunity to be involved in the decision
making process, but they would have to, after-the-fact, appeal the process. As a result,
the proposed ordinance was changed to require that upon receipt of an application for
a temporary event the Community Development Department will mail a notice out
that an application has been received and the Zoning Administrator will decide
'whether to issue a permit. The notice will solicit comments on the proposed event
prior to the Zoning Administrator's decision.
B. Permit Conditions Addressing Neighborhood Comments
Another important change that was made to the proposed ordinance was to allow for
neighborhood feedback prior to a decision on a permit application. This may now be
done because the Zoning Administrator will issue a decision after the comments from
the neighborhood are received by the County,not before.
C. Recommending that the Planning Director Hear Appeals
As noted above, the original draft of the proposed ordinance stated an appeal could be
made to the Board of Supervisors within 15 days of the notice. The ordinance
provided that the hearing would be scheduled at the next available Board of
Supervisors meeting. There was concern that the time delay would burden an
applicant who may have made commitments to vendors for the event but would not
have the Board's decision until past the date of the event. In addition, there may not
be enough time for an applicant to be refunded their deposit should the event be
denied. As a result from numerous comments received on this 'issue the proposed
ordinance was modified to provide that appeals from a Zoning Administrator's
decision be heard by the Director of the Community Development Department
instead of the Board of Supervisors.
This change was not a trouble-free decision, since the Board of Supervisors is the
final decision maker in other land use entitlement matters. Staff believes that this is
an appropriate change since the only other alternative would be to require a
signiticantly, more lengthy application period which could not be met by many
community groups.
Notwithstanding the above noted change to the proposed ordinance, according to
Section 82-44.416 (b) the Board of Supervisors will hear an appeal of a revocation.,
since an appeal of a revocation is less time sensitive.
S-19
Ix. CONCLUSION
The proposed Temporary Events Ordinance has undergone significant revision in
response to community comments. It provides an efficient permitting system that
provides for public comment prior to the decision. Standards for the approval and the
denial of permit applications are clear,, and the proposed ordinance includes a detail list of
conditions designed to ensure that disturbance and inconvenience to surrounding property
owners is minimized.
G:\Current Plan n inu\cu rr-plan\Sta ff Reports\ZT050001.STFRPT.JV0-PC-1.doc
EXHIBIT I
PROPOSED TEMPORARY EVENTS
ORDINANC
E
ORDINANCE NO. 2oo5 - DRAFT
TEMPORARY EVENTS
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows (omitting the parenthetical footnotes
from the official text of the enacted or amended provisions of the County Ordinance Code):
SECTION L SUMMARY. This ordinance establishes procedures for evaluating, permitting, and
regulating short-term activities and events that are conducted on or upon private property and generate
or invite considerable public participation, invitees, or spectators.
SECTION 11. Chapter 82-44 is added to the County Ordinance Code, to read:
Chapter 82-44
TEMPORARY EVENTS
Article 82-44.2
General Provisions
82-44-202 Title. This chapter is known as the Temporary Events Ordinance of Contra Costa County.
(Ord. 2005- § 2.)
82-44.204 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish procedures for evaluating, permitting,
and regulating short-term activities and events that are conducted on private property and generate or
invite considerable public participation, invitees, or spectators. Because these land uses are temporary,
they have negligible or no permanent effect on the environment, and their potential impact on adjoining
properties is either minimal or can be offset by conditions. The procedures authorize the zonin5o,
administrator to approve permits for temporary events and to require permit conditions or deny permits
when necessary to protect the public. The procedures are necessary to protect and promote the
health, safety, and welfare of the public, temporary event participants, and nearby residents. The
procedures are intended to minimize the impacts of temporary events on the normal free flow of
vehicular and pedestrian traffic, to minimize the impacts of noise from temporary events, to protect the
safety of property, and to minimize disturbance and inconvenience to neighbors, neighboring properties
and neighborhoods. (Ord. 2005- § 2.)
82-44-206 Definitions. For purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases have the
following meanings:
(a) "Event" means an occasion on private property organized for a particular and limited purpose
and time and is either: (1) open to the public; or (2) an organized outdoor assemblage that
ORDINANCE NO. 2oo5 DRAFT
exceeds 75 or more persons at a venue in a residential zoning district or at a residence in any
other zoning district,.or 150 or more persons at a venue in any other zoning district. Events
include athletic events, arts and crafts shows, garden parties, carnivals, circuses, fairs, festivals,
musical concerts and other cultural or live entertainment events, and swap meets. "Persons at a
venue"means the total of all attendees, invitees, caterers, event monitors, security, and all other
persons who are at an event venue.
(b) "Noise level"means the `A' weighed sound pressure level in decibels obtained by using a
sound level meter at slow meter response with a reference pressure of 20 micropascals.
(c) "Parade"means a march or procession of people on any County street or right-of-way that
obstructs, delays, or interferes with the normal flow of vehicular traffic, or does not comply with
traffic laws or controls.
(d) "Sound level meter"means an instrument that meets or exceeds American National Standard
Institute's Standard S 1.4-1971 for Type 2 sound level meters, or an instrument and the
associated recording and analyzing equipment that will provide equivalent data.
(e) "Temporary event"means an event that occurs for up to one day at a residence or in a
residential zoning district, or up to three consecutive days at any other location.
(fl "Venue"means the site, lot, parcel, contiguous lots or parcels under common ownership,
location, area, or facility for which an event is held or is proposed to be held. (Ord. 2005-
§
Article 82-44.4
Permits
82-44-402"Temporary Event Permit Required. The following uses are allowed in any zoning district
only after the issuance of a temporary event permit:
(a) A temporary event.
(b) Retail sales of Christmas trees between Thanksgiving and December 26.
(c) Retail sales of pumpkins between October 1 and October 3 1. (Ord. 2005- § 2.)
82-44.404 Exemptions. The following activities are exempt from the permit requirements of this
chapter:
(a) An event held on public property, in a public facility, or in a public park, provided all other
ORDINANCE NO. 2005 - DRAFT
2
•
permits and licenses required by this code or state law are obtained, including encroachment
permits, environmental health permits, and state Alcoholic Beverage Control permits.
(b) An event held in a public right-of-way, including a funeral procession or parade, provided all
other permits and licenses required by this code or state law are obtained, *including
1b
encroachment permits,, environmental health permits, and state Alcoholic Beverage Control
permits.
(c) An activity conducted by a governmental agency acting within the scope of its authority.
(d) Weddings, birthday parties, graduation parties, or other family events held at a private
residence,provided that no more than four of these events are held within a 12-month period.
(e) An event held at a members-only non-residential facility where the only participants are
members and their guests.
(f) An event held at a school, provided the event is consistent with the underlying land use
entitlement.
(g) An event held at a religious entity's facility, provided the event is consistent with the underlying
land use entitlement.
(h) Afilm-making activity for which a filming permit has been obtained in accordance with Chapter
56-8 of this code.
(i) Car washes for fund raising purposes,provided that the car washes are held on private
property other than a residence, are limited to a maximum of two days each month for each
sponsoring organization, and are sponsored by an educational, charitable, religious, or nonprofit
group-
(j) Garage sales held at a private residence,dence,provided that sales occur no more than four times
within a 12-month period per residence, for a maximum of two consecutive days each.
(k) Areal estate open house, where a property is for sale, lease or rent. (Ord. 2005- § 2.)
82-44.406 Application and Review.
(a) Any person, entity, business,, or group wishing to hold, sponsor, conduct, operate or-maintain a
temporary event shall submit a completed temporary event permit application to the community
development department. The application form shall be signed and verified by the applicant, if
f
an individual; a general partner authorized to sign on behalf of a partnership; an of icer or
ORDINANCE NO. 2005 - DRAFT
3
director authorized to sign on behalf of a corporation; or a participant authorized to sign on
behalf of a joint venture or association. The applicant must be a qualified applicant pursuant to
Section 26-2.1604.
(b) An applicant for a temporary event permit shall provide the following information:
(1) The name, address, and telephone number of the applicant and an alternate contact
person.
(2) If the event is proposed to be sponsored by an organization, the name, address and
telephone number of the organization, and the authorized head of the organization, and
the name of any other person or entity benefiting from the event.
(3) The name, address and telephone number of the person who will be present and in
charge of the event on the day of the event.
(4) The type of event (e.g., a concert or arts and crafts show).
(5) Date and estimated starting and ending time of the event, including the time required to
prepare and clean up the venue.
(6) Location of the event, including its street address and boundaries.
(7) Estimated number of attendees or participants at the event.
(8) The type and estimated number of vehicles and structures that will be used at the event,
if any.
(9) Description of any sound amplification equipment that is proposed for use at the event.
(10) Whether any food will be served or sold at the event and, if applicable, the time and
manner in which caterers and catering trucks will be used.
(11) Whether any beverages, including alcoholic beverages, will be served or sold at the
event, and whether any such sales will be wholesale or retail.
(12) Whether security or event monitors will be employed at the event.
(13) Parking, traffic control, and crowd control measures proposed for the event.
(14) The number and type of events held at the venue in the preceding 24 months.
ORDINANCE NO. 2-0005 - DRAFT
4
(15) A site plan showing the size and location of property lines, sidewalks, streets, and
improvements on adjacent properties, clearly labeled and drawn to scale.
(16) The time and acts required to prepare the venue for the event and the time and acts
required following the event to clean up and restore the regular use of the property or
venue.
(17) Provisions made for first aid and sanitary facilities.
(18) Other information as deemed necessary by the community development director
relative to the event for purposes of managing traffic,parking,public health and safety,
or minimizing any disturbance or inconvenience to the neighbors and the neighborhood.
(c) A complete application for a temporary event permit must be submitted at least 45 days before
the proposed event. The community development director may, for good cause, reduce the
number of days in the deadline for a particular application,provided that, in the community
development director's opinion, a reasonable time is allowed to conduct the necessary analysis
and give adequate notice to the public. Examples of good cause include, but are not limited to:
(1) the proposed temporary event is in response to an occurrence whose timing did not
reasonably allow the applicant to file a timely application, and(2)the imposition of the time
limitations would place an unreasonable restriction on the free speech rights of the applicant.
(d) An application maybe made for one permit that allows up to three events in a calendar year at
avenue, provided the application includes the required information for each proposed event.
(e) Once filed, the application is a public record open to the inspection of all persons.
(f) The community development department shall review the application for completeness, and if
deemed incomplete, the applicant shall have five (5) calendar days from the date of notification
of insufficiency, to provide additional information as requested by the community development
department.
(g) Except as provided by section 82-44.406(g)(3)(Grounds for Mandatory Denial), the zoning
administrator may approve, conditionally approve or deny an application for a temporary event
permit based on the grounds specified in sections 82-44.406(g)(1) and(g)(2). The zoning
administrator shall determine from a consideration of the application or other evidence whether
grounds for approval, conditional approval or denial exist.
(1) Grounds for Approval or Conditional Approval.
(A) The temporary event will not create an unreasonable impact on nearby
ORDINANCE NO. 2005 - DRAFT
5
neighbors' or property owners' use of their property.
(B) The temporary event will not be detrimental to property or improvements in the
area adjacent to the temporary use.
(C) The temporary event will not otherwise unreasonably affect the public health,
safety and welfare.
(2) Grounds for Denial.
(A) Information contained in the application, or supplemental information requested-
from the applicant, is found to be false in any material detail.
(B) The applicant fails to timely file the application form under section 82-44.406(c)
or fails to complete and submit the application form within five calendar days
after having been notified of the additional information or documents required
under section 82-44.406(f).
(C) A violation of any tern or condition of a temporary event permit previously
issued within the preceding 24 months to the applicant or for the private
property venue.
(D) Another temporary event permit application has been received prior in time, or
has already been approved, to hold another event at the same time and place
requested by the applicant,, or so close in time and place as to cause undue
traffic congestion.
(E) The time, route, characteristics,, or size of the event will substantially interrupt
the safe and orderly movement of traffic contiguous to the event site or route, or
disrupt the use of a street at a time when it is usually subject to great traffic
congestion) or be detrimental to property or 'improvements in the surrounding
area, or otherwise unreasonably and adversely affect nearby neighbors' use of
their property. In making a determination under this subsection the zoning
ing
administrator will consider the public health, safety and welfare of the neighbors
and the applicant, and will strive to achieve a reasonable balance among these
factors.
(F) The concentration of persons, animals, or vehicles at the site of the event, or the
assembly and disbanding areas around an event, will prevent proper police, fire,
or ambulance services to the venue and areas contiguous to the event.
ORDINANCE NO. 2oo5 - DRAFT
6
(G) The location of the event will substantially interfere with a previously granted
encroachment permit or with any previously scheduled construction or
maintenance work scheduled to take place upon or along County streets.
(H) The proposed event conflicts with an underlying land use entitlement for the
property.
(I) When the grounds for denial of an application for permit specified in
subsections (2)(D) through (2)(G), above, can be mitigated by altering the date,
time duration,, size route or location of the event the zoning administrator shall
1 5 5 1 ZD
conditionally approve the application upon the applicant's acceptance of
conditions for permit issuance instead of denying the application. If the grounds
for denial cannot be mitigated by imposing conditions', the-permit will be denied.
(3) Grounds for Mandatory Denial. Notwithstanding sections 82-44.406(g)(1) and(g)(2),
the zoning administrator shall deny an application for a temporary event permit when a
temporary event peritn previously issued within the preceding 24 months to the
applicant or for the specific private property venue was revoked.
(h) Following the community development department's receipt of a temporary event permit
application, the department will mail to property owners within 500 feet of the venue a notice
that an application has been received and that the zoning administrator will decide whether to
issue a permit. The notice will solicit comments on the proposed event. Following the zoning
administrator's decision on the permit application,, the decision will be mailed to property
owners within 500 feet of the venue. The decision maybe appealed to the community
development director within seven calendar days of the mailing date of the notice. A decision is
final if no appeal is filed within seven calendar days after the decision is mailed. An appeal must
be in writing,, state the grounds for appeal, and include an appeal fee. Upon receipt of a
properly filed appeal, the community development department will schedule the appeal before
the community development director and notify the appellants and applicant of the hearing date
and time. The community development director's decision following an appeal hearing is final
for purposes of exhaustion of administrative remedies. (Ord. 2005- § 2.)
82-44.408 Conditions.
(a) The zoning administrator may condition the issuance of a temporary events permit by imposing
reasonable requirements concerning the time, place, and manner of the event, and by imposing
any requirements that are necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public,
temporary event participants, and nearby residents, to protect the safety of property, and to
maximize the control of traffic. The zoning administrator may consult with public works, fire,,
and law enforcement officials and impose reasonable conditions requested by those officials.
ORDINANCE NO. 2005 - DRAFT
7
Conditions shall not restrict expressive activity or the content of speech. Conditions may
include, but are not limited to:
(1) Alteration of the date, time, route or location of the event proposed on the application.
(2) Conditions concerning the area of assembly.
(3) Conditions concerning accommodation of pedestrian or vehicular traffic.
(4) Conditions concerning parking, including but not limited to requirements for the use of
shuttles from parking areas to the venue.
fftf"
(5) Conditions concerning trallic control, including but not limited to requirements for the
use of traffic cones or barricades.
(6) Requirements for provision of first aid or sanitary facilities.
(7) Requirements for use of event monitors and security responsible for crowd control, fire
watch, general security, and evacuation of occupants.
(8) Conditions concerning maximum occupancy and number of attendees, based on the
size of the venue and for purposes of minimizing impacts on traffic,parking,public
8
health and safety, and minimizing disturbance or inconvenience to neighbors and the
neighborhood.
(9) Requirements for providing notice of permit conditions to event participants and
requirements for providing notice of the temporary event to properties within 500 feet
of the venue.
(10) Restrictions on the number and type of vehicles, animals, or structures at the event, and
inspection and approval of structures.
(11) Compliance with animal protection ordinances and laws.
(12) Requirements for use of garbage containers and cleanup.
(13) Requirements for reducing, reusing and recycling solid waste materials generated at a
large event or large venue. "Large event" and "large venue" have the meaning set forth
in Public Resources Code section 42648.
r time(14) Conditions limiting the duration ot%time and hours of the event (including the time to
ORDINANCE NO. 2005 - DRAFT
8
prepare and clean up the venue) in order to minimize impacts on traffic,parking,public
health and safety, and minimize disturbance or inconvenience to the neighbors and the
neighborhood.
(15) Time, place, and manner restrictions on the use of amplified sound. The use of
amplified sound is prohibited in a residential district unless allowed as a condition of a
temporary event permit.
(b) When a temporary event permit is granted for any event in a residential zoning district or at a
residence in any other zoning district, it is granted subject to the following conditions:
(1) The event shall not generate or emit any noise or sound that exceeds any of the levels
specified in the table below measured at the exterior of any dwelling unit located on
another residential property. The noise generated or emitted shall not exceed the levels
specified in the table for the duration of time specified in the table. Exterior noise levels
shall be measured with a sound level meter. The permit shall incorporate the applicable
"allowable exterior noise levels" specified in the table into the permit conditions only for
the duration of time allowed for the event by the permit. For example, if the permit
provides that an event shall end by 7 p.m., the "allowable exterior noise levels" allowed
between 9 a.m. and 8 p.m. shall be incorporated into the conditions, but the event must
end by 7 p.m.
ALLOWABLE EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS
Cumulative Duration of Noise 9 a.m. — 8 p.m. 8 p.m,, — 10 P.M.
30 minutes per hour 60 dBA 55 dBA
15 minutes per hour 65 dBA 60 dBA
5 minutes per hour 70 dBA 65 dBA
I minute per hour 75 dBA 70 dBA
Level not to be exceeded at any time 80 dBA 75 dBA
(2) Amplified sound is prohibited after 8 p.m. Sundays through Thursdays and after 10
p.m. Fridays, Saturdays, and holidays. A temporary event permit shall not allow the
use of amplified sound after these hours.
(c) Permittees are subject to the terms and conditions of the permit, and to all applicable local,
state, and federal laws. (Ord. 2005- _ § 2.)
ORDINANCE NO. 2005 - DRAFT
9
82-44.410 Duration.
(a) A temporary event permit is valid only for the time or times specified in the permit. A
temporary event periti lapses if not used within the time or times specified.
(b) A single temporary event permit maybe granted for up to three events at a single venue in a
12-month period. (Ord. 2005- § 2.)
82-44.412 Other Permits and Licenses.
(a) The issuance of a temporary event permit does not relieve anyone from the obligation to obtain
any other permit or license required by this code or state law, 'Including but not limited to
encroachment permits, environmental health permits, and state Alcoholic Beverage Control
permits.
(b) The issuance of any other permit or license does not relieve anyone from the obligation to
obtain a temporary event permit pursuant to this chapter. (Ord. 2005- § 2.)
82-44.414 Land Use Permit Required.
(a) Aland use permit is required for an event if any of the following occur:
(1) Three events that required a temporary event permit were previously held at a venue in
the same calendar year.
(2) Four or more events Will be held at a venue in a calendar year.
(3) Three or more events will be held at a venue within a 45-day period.
(4) An event will last more than one day at a residence or in a residential zoning district, or
more than three consecutive days at any other location.
(5) More than 300 people will be present at an event in a residential zoning district or at a
residence in any other zoning district.
(6) Two or more events, with 200 or more people present at each event, will be held at a
residential zoning distract1venue in a resi I I or at a residence in any other zoning district within a
calendar year.
(7) A temporary event permit previously issued to the applicant or for the venue was
ORDINANCE NO. 2o05 - DRAFT
10
revoked within the preceding 24 months.
(b) It is a violation of this section if the number of people present at an event exceeded a size
threshold specified in subsection (a) above, and a land use permit was not obtained before the
event. For purposes of this section, "the number of people present at an event"means the total
of all attendees, invitees, caterers, event monitors, security, and all other persons who are at the
event venue.
(c) If a land use permit or building permit is required for a structure associated with a temporary
event, then no event may be held at the venue without a land use permit.
(d) An application for a land use permit will be decided in accordance with article 26-2.20 of this
code. (Ord. 2005- § 2.)
82-44.416 Enforcement.
(a) An event maybe monitored by law enforcement and code enforcement officials to determine
compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit.
(b) A temporary event permit maybe revoked for any violation of any term or condition that
occurs at an event or for-any other reason specified in Section 26-2.2022. A revocation may
be appealed to the board of supervisors within seven days of the revocation.
(c) The County may enforce this division by any remedy allowed under this Ordinance Code or
any other remedy allowed by law. (Ord. 2005- § 2.)
Article 82-44.6
Fees and Costs
82-44.602 Application Fee. A nonrefundable application fee for a temporary event permit shall be
paid when the application is submitted. An application for a temporary event permit is not complete
until the application fee is paid. (Ord. 2005- § 2.)
82-44.604 General.
(a) Permit application fees,, regulatory fees, inspection fees, and appeal fees will be in amounts
established by the board of supervisors in the community development department's fee
schedule.
(b) Fees required under this chapter are in addition to any other fee required under any other
chapter of this code or any other county, state or federal law or regulation. (Ord. ?005- § 2.)
ORDINANCE NO. 2005 - DRAFT
I I
SECTION 111. Chapter 56-2 of the County Ordinance Code is repealed in its entirety.
SECTION IV. Section 82-34.804 of the County Ordinance Code is repealed in its entirety.
SECTION V. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage, and
within 15 days after passage shall be published once with the names of supervisors voting for or against
it in the Contra Costa Times, a newspaper published in this County.
PASSED on by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: JOHN SWEETEN,
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Board Chair
and County Administrator
By: [SEAL]
Deputy
HA2005\Community Development\Events\temp events ord-PCdraft5.wpd
ORDINANCE NO. 2005 - DRAFT
I?."w
EXHIBIT 2
cNTSC1V'
FROM MLINICTPAL
ADVISORY COUNCILS,. AGENCIES,
NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP'S, AND THE
PUBLIC I I ,G THE coMmlNTI IOD
OL
KENSINGTON,MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
:D
O?"o U�--1 PM 25
June .".22, 2005
Catherine Kutsuris
Deputy Director, Community Development
Contra Costa County
651 Pine St., 4"'Floor, North Wing
Martinez, CA 9455 3
Re: Draft Temporary Events Ordinance
Dear Ms. Kutsuris:
Supervisor John Gioia presented the revised draft (June, 2005) of the proposed
Temporary Events Ordinance to the Kensington community at the Council's special
meeting this evening. After extensive discussion and questioning by all present, the
Council passed the following resolution by a 4-1 vote.
"The Kensington Municipal Advisory Council supports the good work of the
County on revising the Temporary Events Ordinance and supports the Ordinance
subject to the following modifications which address the concerns of health, safety,
and quality of life in Kensington, an R-6 residential community:
1. Each event requires an individual permit. Multiple events on a single
permit are prohibited.
2. Maximum number of events which can be held on a residential property is
two within a 12 month period with the two events not less than 45 days apart.
3. Maximum number of persons on site limited to 125 per event including all
attendees, staff, and entertainers for any event.
4. The Count
y and Law Enforcement agencies shall monitor and enforce the
Administrative Permit and Temporary Event ordinance provisions. The
applicant shall.pay all costs of this enforcement.
5. All sound monitoring shall be performed by a person qualified in the use of
sound level measurement equipment.
6. The responsible Fire Department and Law Enforcement Agency shall each
be notified at the time an Administrative Permit request is filed.
7. Define "Outdoor Assemblage" as an outdoor gathering where attendees may
enter the onsite residence as opposed to an indoor residential gathering
where attendees may also gather on attached decks.
S. Even if all grounds FOR APPROVAL are met by the applicant, an
administrative permit may still be denied if ANY grounds for DENIAL are
met.
C.Kmtsuris,June 22,2005
9. Amplified sound is prohibited after 8 pm daily. Maximum sound levels
shall continue to be enforced after 8 pm.
10. Section 82-44.206(a): delete "75 or more invited persons at a venue" and
replace with "75 or more people present at a venue".
11. Section 82-44.414(b): The second sentence should be moved to the definitions
at Section 82-44.206.
12. Section 82-44.204: The second sentence starting with "Because" and ending
with "conditions" be deleted."
Thank you for this opportunity to offer our recommendation regarding the new draft of
the Temporary Events Ordinance.
Sincerely,
Ray B arraza
Chair, Kensington Municipal Advisory Council 000,
248 Amherst Avenue
Kensington, CA 94708
CC: Supervisor John Gioia
r/�V4r. John Oborne, Community Development Dept.
.Co.
a
May 25, 2005
Community Development Dept.
Attn: lcnn 0"borrie
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553
Via Email: jobor('Cotd.cccounty.us
RE: DRAFT TEMPORARY EVENTS ORDINANCE
Dear Mr. Oborne:
The Crockett community finds much to be concerned about in the proposed new regulations for
"temporary events." Crockett organizations host numerous special events for fund-raising purposes
throughout the year. The revenues are critical to the financial health of our many non-profits, and the
events provide a wealth of recreational and cultural opportunities. From crab feeds to the Oakland
Symphony, our community thrives on these events, all of which demand extensive investment of
volunteer time but may only generate a few hundred dollars. Many events have been tried that failed to
break even.
We believe the specter of new County permit fees will be enough to stifle events that Crockett depends
on. Just last year, there was a loud outcry about higher booth rental fees proposed for Crockett's Festival
on the Strait. Some of our leading orcal.anizations were going to drop out, saying they just wouldn't make
enough money to bother doing all the work. The fee hike had to be quashed to save the event. The draft
ordinance dogs not recognize the adverse effects of permit fees on small-town civic events.
The lengthy lead time proposed in the draft ordinance to apply for permits will be another adverse tactor.
Crockett organizations have enough deadlines to comply with already. When we apply for grants and
donations as "seed money" to het an event doing we'll need to prove that our event won't be refused a
permit. The proposed 45-day minimum application will cause us to miss grant deadlines in some cases.
We have a right to expect prompt consideration of special event applications, with permits issued within
days, not months. Our volunteer groups won't be able to sign contracts with entertainers, caterers and
suppliers until new permits are in hand., at which time it may be too late to make the booking. The.draft
ordinance does not provide an expedited approval process that is responsive to community needs. It
seems to regard special events only as something to restrict, but there is great need to foster more events
for public participation. The draft ordinance does not foster civic}ride, cultural richness, fund-raising, or
any other beneficial purposes of our special e�rents. We could argue that the ordinance is cil ally very
weak on benefits to the public.
Our annual fireworks event is a very expensive gift to the comrnunity, and a very popular e. We have
to be worried that it will be compromised by the proposed ordinance. Not only v,ould it los-. cri more
money to permit fees,permit delays could cause it to fall to get a contract signed in time to a
booking. Then our event would be lost for a year. Even more worrisome could be the word about
"rounds for approval or conditional approval." What is "an unreasonable impact on nearby I!zhbors
Use of their property" and 110W Will the public's interest in having the fireworks be protects:- 'he draft
ordinance does not address the important question of how many neighbors (or how felx nei(.- Ts) it will
take to override public interests. Will one noise-sensitive person be able to shut down a put'! at
Cl�
our swimming pool, fol- instancc�� How are volunteers supposed to be confident of successfu -,.,nts
within the -framework of this broad-brush ordinance.
We could argue that denial of an event pern-ilt might unreasonably affect the public welfare 1T_
-
T U_ ?C*1__%4obcvr% A f-%1 In ry ozbl ron-T-A rfllyn a nn4z6h1P tn r.retite andDemetuate
cornrnunlLy. L,U U Ll I V U I IJLCV,-13 iiav,,- LJ%,,%..,i j %-s%�J A A I& %.'V%.0 4)16 A A A A A C) r -- -- A _Ssful
new events for public benefit. The chilling effect of the proposed ordinance could be drai�na L people
L-1)decide that It'sISt.i
-Just ]lot WOYth it to contend w'th the slow procedures of the Zon*no AdiiliniS
approval process. More regulation by the County is not what people are asking for in Crooke tis not
our planned events that draw complaints but rather the Undisciplined "events"that spill Out fl- iocal
lov, ffil M-ur-Isr- 1-dnoti-nry tlip -npl
allborhonddate at night and un-mufflered motcies
oars I 1-1'AL.0 JL 1-1 e, 6-'t reet's VV 1 1 k-, Lj JLALJ LAI L& A.A%.0AC)AA
competing for attention with the squealing tires of idiots spinning doughnuts. We beg for pot attention
to our real problems, and we get instead this type of Ordinance that threatens to stifle well-pl ILI
popular civic events through the burden of unneeded regulations.
In short, we would like the County to understand that Crockett does not have apToblern with E-", a]
events.,but our whole community will certainly suffer adverse effects from the proposed ordirl. as
Written. The only ray of sun that seems to shine through It is the exemption for activities r "con COD L'd by a
governmental agency acting Within the scope of its authority." We can hope to save some (bu. : all)
local events through that exemption. But why should the exemptions be so limited? Should .vim
meets and softball games need County permits? What about our bocce tournament between sT d
senior citizens? Does our town cleanup need a pen-nit in order for 51 volunteers to pick up tra., id pull
weeds for public benefit one Saturday rnornl'ng? How is anyone to ]:now what needs a pun-nit.
particularly if we don't know how many will participate? More to the point, how is anyont. Sul I-A to
understand the wisdom of needing a permit to hold a town cleanup or a swim meet? A-nd more
realistically, why should our community agree to become highly regulated in this regard?
We understand that this whole effort is a direct response to activities at one private venue in Ke Non,
and we do not agree that this broad-brush ordinance is an appropriate burden to impose on our
community. This ordinance should be much more focused. 11should target the problems that e- 'not
create universal problems for all. We have to hope that cooler heads will prevail before any Zsuc-
measures are adopted into law.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal.
Sincerely.,
Jay Gunkelman, President
Crockett Improvement Association
Cc: Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkerna
lilllFoundationCrockett Co
P.O.Boy 155, Crockett, C.A.
Phone 510-787-9708
9452o5_
V.,
ma Fax 514-^757-1346
[lot] 0DOa
ga
Dug
1100 Goo �
1R20 ..�
U
v
County Planning commission SUPERVISOR GAYLc°.U1LKEMA
Attention: John obo me (J
� f�'TA COjTAOUNT'
Communi t v Deve to-Dment Department
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94 553
Dear Mr. oborne:
In reviewing the proposed Temporary Event ordinance, we f ind several
issues o f concern. The ordinance generally seems to place an undue
burden upon organizations involved in fund raising activities.
We are a volunteer organization. one of our purposes is to assist local
organizations in fund raising. We feel that several elements of this
ordinance will create onerous burdens for organizations trying to
participate in fund raising events. Further it will create an
additional burden on our organization by establishing an additional
layer of bureaucracy to wade through in our grant giving since we will
have to ensure that applicants successfully comply with these
requirements before funding their grant requests.
s
Some of the application procedures seem excessive, including asking
applicants to list "the number and types of activities at a venue in
the preceding 24 months" (infori ation of which they may not be aware)
[82-4 4,406(b) (14) and requiring a to-scale site drawing [82-
44,406(b) (15) ] .
2-
44,406{b} (15) ] .
The appeal of a tentative decision of a temporary event permit
[82-44.406 ( ] will allow one person in the neighborhood to defeat a
well planned and organized community event. . This has the potential of
opening organizations up to considerable expenditure with no ability to
make up the losses caused by a last minute denial of permit.
J.
a a f.a.L so,
An example of the unnecessary impact of this ordnance is the annual
Memorial Day event our local historical society and museum hosts so
that the community may commemorate our veterans, living and dead.
Included in this event is a Big Band concert held in a privately owned
P
ark during the afternoon. No admission is charged for this event nor
is any money raised. This ordinance will jeopardize our Memorial Day
commemoration through the imposition of excessive fees, as well as
through the noise level requirements. Additionally these are volunteers
who have no experience in site drawing, let alone- knowledge of what
events have occurred in the park in the last two years.
Ingeneral we find that this ordinance will have a detrimental effect
not only on organizations within the community, but the community at
large. The additional fees imposed by this ordinance may well be too
costly to make many of the fund raising or community oriented
activities by small organisations in small communities feasible.
Sincerely,
Mervyn Si* vermin, M,D.
Chairperson,
0
Crockett Community Foundation
cc: Gayle Uilkema
June 13, 2005
John Oborne
Contra Costa County Community Development
651 Pine Street. 4 1h Floor, North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553
RE: Temporary Events Ordinance
Dear Mr. Oborne,
The Kensington Property Owners Association (11;'I.-POA) respectfully submits the
following recommendations for your consideration:
1) Limit the number of permitted events to two (2) per year in residential areas. The
ordinance is attempting to address temporary and infrequent events that may occur in
a zoning area in which existing land use rules otherwise prohibit such events. If the
purpose of the ordinance is to regulate matters affecting the public welfare, it would-
make
ouldmake sense that the ordinance would consider the noise nuisance and imposition that
these events may have on the immediate neighborhood and Limit the occurrences in
order not to measurably impact the public welfare.
2) Limit the number of maximum number of participants to 150 in residential
areas. more than 150 is simply too burdensome and impactful in a residential zone.
In Kensington, we have a very small police department and fire department, and the
ability to respond in the case of an emergency at an event, is limited. Also should a
fire occur in the high fire area of Kensington, evacuation of a larger group will be
even more difficult.
3) In residential districts, prohibit outdoor amplified sound. The most significant
complaint of neighbors surrounding the outdoor music events in Kensington, have
been in regard to amplified sound. We believe that prohibiting amplified sound in
areas in which residences are within 300 feet, will reduce a large part of the nuisance
that events may create.
4) Require that applicant fees for Temporary Events are sufficient to cover necessary
enforcement of the ordinance.. A code enforcement officer should be required to
evaluate compliance with events.
44
5) Exempt all community-sponsored events and private events that are held in an
existinc,public or religious meeting facility. Kensington has a number of traditionally
held events such as the Annual Kensington Parade and Open House or Town Hall
Meetings held at the Community Center, these events are held on public right of
ways, roadways and in community centers and should not be subject to this
ordinance. We also would recommend that any government owned property, such as
the park and school, would be exempt from the ordinance, as these facilities are
provided for public assembly.
Thank you for all effort to define and clarify the provisions in this ordinance. If you
have any questions please call me at (510) 559-8232.
Sincerely,
Gail Feldman
0
Gail Feldman wo**
President
Cc: Supervisor John Gioia
��COVMy
TOViIN OF DISCOVERY' BAY
1800 Widow rake Road,Discovery Bay,CA 94514
Telephone; (925)634-1231 Fax: (925)50.#w2705.
Du MMbjr
Pmsidmt-Bob Doran r.doran1234(&bcz1ot*1.net
V.Prcsid=E-David Fiepho CLPiCPhQ*bCRiQt01ner
Ttcssurv+Ray T==ult r.; 1 Qsbcg)ohal.nec
Dl-m=-Barry Muds bhinds1234 bcglabalzer
May 11, 2005 Director-Shannon Murphy Teixeira zmur*WAci=irz8abcS1oba1.nv.
Contra Costa County Communil.Y Development Dept.
Attn_John Oborne
651 Pine Street,4`h Floor,N. Wing
Martinez, CA 945503
Faso: 335-4211
RE: Comments an Draft Temporary Events Ordinance
Dear John:
The Town of Discovery Ray Community Services District(CSD) Board of Directors reviewed your Draft.
Temporary Everts Ordinance at our regular meeting on May 6, .1.005 and has the following questions
and/or comments:
1) We want to know if the County has the ability to enforce this ordinance and who will be
enforcing this.
2) What device(s)will the County use to measure the noise levels?
3� The.Town of Discovery' aBay CSD would like to be notified of any and all events that
will be 9 place M' our community.
We will be
awaiting your response to our quesrions 91 and #2 and if you have any questions,
please give me a call at my office at 634-11313 I.
Si erely,
Vjr��i Kflelzne, General Manager
000
Town of Discovery Bay CSD
vKjca
It
416
'XK`-*vV-JNSINGTON FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
clo El Cerrito Fire Department
10900 San Pablo Avenue
El Cerrito, CA 94530
(510)215-4450
FAX(510)232-4917
May 27,2005
Mr.Ray B arraza
KMA C Chair
248 Amherst Avenue
Kensington, CA 94708
Dear Mr.B arraza:
I have reviewed the proposed Contra Costa County Ordinance on Temporary Events. The Fire Department
has concerns about large congregations of people, in both commercial and residential areas that might overwhelm
our resources. The specific concerns have to do with:
1.Traffic or parking that affects or delays emergency responses to events or surrounding areas.
2.The need for medical aid for large groups.
3.The need to evacuate large groups.
4.The potential need to provide fire watch.
These areas appear to be address in the following sections:
1.82-44.406 Application and Review—
(g)(2)-Grounds for Denial;(D), (E),(F)
2.82-44.408 Conditions—
(a) 4,5,6,7,8
3.82-44.414 Land Use Permit Required—
(a) 5,6
The Fire Department must be notified when an"Application for Temporary Event"is filed for,and all of the
concerns listed above must be satisfied, if the event is to occur in our jurisdiction.
Sincerely,
VOO• f
William R. C app s
Fire Marshal
FRPM Ron Banducci FAX NO. 925-736-0464 Jun. 03 2005 09:09AM P71
Page I or I
Subj: Comments on Proposed Temporary Events Ordinance
Date: 5/16/2005 9:43:30AM Pacific Standard Time
From: RJBANDUCCI
To: jobor@,co-cccoun ty.us
Mr. borne:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed County ordinance covering
Temporary Events. This ordinance is of interest to the Blackhawk Police Services District P2,.
Zone A, Advisory Committee, as outdoor amplified concerts have been conducted within
Blackhawk. Although these concerts have generally been attended by well over 300 people,
the potential does exist for smaller outdoor concerts and other events to occur, which fall within
the scope of this proposed ordinance.
Following are our specific comments:
(1) Within Sect-ion 82-4 .408, Conditions, Page (8), Paragraph (a),, change the sentence "The
Zoning Administrator may consult with public works, fire, and law enforcement officials and
impose reasonable conditions requested by those officials." to "The Zoning Administrator
shall consult with public works, fire, and law enforcement officials and impose reasonable
conditions requested by those officials." Since many temporary events inherently -involve
issues and expertise within the jurisdiction of one or more of these public enttes (such as
fireworks, crowd control, unruly behavior, alcoholic beverage consumption, traffic control,
safety and security of nearby residents, and event security),, consultation with them should be
mandatory.
(2) Vlrithin Section 82-X4.408, Conditions, Page (9), Paragraph (a)(9), the requirement to
provide "notice of the temporary event to properties within 300 feet of the venue" should be
changed to provide"notice of the temporary event to properties within 500 feet of the venue".
Large amplified-concerts will typically have audible impact well beyond 300ft from the venue,
and any event attended by up to 300 people is certainly likely to create parking and traffic
issues for residents beyond 300 ft
.(3) V\rtthin Section 82-44.408,, Condit-ions, Page (10), Paragraph (b)(1)7 in the table showing
the allowabie exterior noise level, on Fridays, Saturdays, and Holidays, the 8 p.m. - 10 p.m.
time period should be changed to 8 p.m. - 9 p.m_ Similarjy, in Paragraph (b)(2) at the top of
Page 11, the -statement"Amplified sound is prohibited after 8 p_m. Sundays through Thursdays
a iaftp-r in -m. Fddays. Saturdaysbe changed to "Amplified sound is
n� and holidays." should
prohibited after 8 p.m. Sundays through Thursdays and after 9 p.m. Fridays, Saturdays, and
holidays-" Allowing sound levels of up to 75 dBA after 9 p.m. in residential areas seems
excessive.
Aga-in, thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important proposed ordinance.
Ronald J_ Banducci, Chairman
Blackhawk-Police Advisory Committee Voe
To: John Oborne, Community Development/Contra Costa County May 216-1005
From: Parkmead Community Association/Walnut Creek, CA
COMMENTS ON DRAFT TEMPORARY EVENTS ORDINANCE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Temporary Events Ordinace. Our
neighborhood association in south Walnut Creek holds several events per year, some *n the City%-.-, I
of Walnut Creek and others in the unicorporated area. We hold meetings in a neighborhood
16� k-01
church and have an annual block party, both in the unincorporated area of our neighborhood. hi
Z
the past, we have obtained a pen-nit and insurance from the County for the block party. The
proposed ordinance raises some questions for us.
82W-44.404
The ordinance exempts events '-f-sponsored by a religious entity held at the recrious entitv's
facility." Would the PCA require a permit to hold its general meetings at a neighborhoodW
church? We usually have more than 50 attendees. By granting us use of the facility, is the
church considered to ``sponsor'' the meeting?
The ordinance exempts garage sales held at a private residence. Would our annual
neighborhood-wide garage sale facilitated by the PCA, be exempt?
82.0-44.406 (h)
There is no provision that the zoning, administrator's tentative decision be made in a timely
Cl�
manner. If an appeal must be heard at the (.(.next available board of supervisors meetino"there
t�
should be some requirement that the tentative decision be made at least one full week (preferably
more) prior to the event date.
82-44.412
Would the PCA still be required to obtain a street closure permit from the Public Works
Department for our annual block party? Would $1 million liability insurance still be required?
Pete Johnson 93)3-4490 PeteRPCV(wastound.net
President, Parkinead Community Association
I`ENSINGTON MUNICIPAL ADVISORY CQUN-CII-= �.
May 24, 2005)
Contra Costa County Community Development Dept.
6.6`3 1 Pine St., 4"'"Floor, North Wing
Martinez, CA 945D,.W.,� 0090)
Attention: John Oborne
Re: Draft Temporary Events Ordinance
Dear Mr. Oborne-
Kensm* ,crton
Municipal Advisory Council (KMAC) received a copy of the proposed
ordinance and scheduled a meeting for public comment upon it before we received
Community Development Department's (CDD's) letter of April 18 to all MAC's and
Other Interested Organizations. Therefore, our comments are from two sources: (1)
KMAC members and the public comment meeting of April ?1 including remarks
received before and after that meeting and (?) a mail canvass of Kensington community
organizations made in response to your letter of April 18.
Due to the large number of comments collected by KMAC, I am transmitting them to you
as a series of attachments to this letter. Attachment 1 contains the comments made by
the public at our April 21 special meeting and by KMAC members. The other
attachments are documents either handed to KMAC at our April 21 meeting or furnished
to us separately including those in response to our mail canvass. All comments
concern the draft ordinance received by KMAC in early April which-we believe to be
identical to the one attached to your April 18 request.
In9 eneral, the response at the April ,'2.I meeting was as follows:
■ A majority of KMAC members felt that an ordinance was appropriate as a way to
define what types and sizes of events were appropriate in residential areas, but
they also felt this draft to be too permissive.
■ Residents adjacent to 500 Coventry are opposed to this ordinance as they view it
as permissive to the owner of X00 Coventry.
■ Other residents of Kensingtoncrenerally felt it better to what's acceptable,
but there were concerns expressed over the implications to other traditional
community activities at the school, churches, and even the annual Kensm' ,gton
parade.
Mr.John Obome,May 24,2005
In preparing Attachment 1, 1 attempted to assign comments received to the appropriate
section of the draft ordinance, if the appropriate section had not already been assigned by
the author.
At my suggestion, residents adjacent to 500 Coventry (the Coventry Neighborhood
Group or CNG) sought to assign alternate specific numerical values to some of those
found in the draft ordinance. This was not meant to chancre their opposition to the
ordinance but rather to assign values which would help mitigate impacts upon them of
the activities at 500 Coventry should the draft ordinance be adopted. This is
Attachment 7.
Sincerely,
Ray B arraza
KMAC Chair
')48 Amherst Avenue
Kensington, CA 94708
(510) 526-2467
Attachments:
1. Comments from the public at 4/21 KMAC meeting and from KMAC members (5
pages)
2. Coventry Neighborhood Group (CNG) comments submitted at 4/2 1 meeting (1
page)
3. Comments of Marilyn Stollon and John Gaccione (I page)
4. Comments of Mr. Jack Walker submitted at 4/21 meeting (I pale)
5. Comments of Dr. Leonard Schwartzburd submitted at 4/2.1 meeting (5 pages)
6. Comments of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Berkeley (I pale)
7. Comments of the Kensington Improvement Club (3 pages)
8. CNG comments furnished subsequently to 4/,',)..l meeting (also sent directly to
you). (13 pages)
Cc: Supervisor John Gioia
-� Catherine Kutsuris, Community Development Dept.
Kensin,orton Outlook
few,
Kensington Police Protection and Community Services District
Kensington Fire Protection District
Kensington Community Council
The Journal
Attachment I
Comments from the public at,KMAC April 21 meeting and from KMAC
members
Very General Comments
When applyingstandards under the ordinance, err on the side of protecting the neighbors.
■ 1building261� I
In the future, property owners should be restricted from the "infrastructure" which
can be used to support events. (e.g. Professional sound system)
82-44.204 Purpose
0 Section 82-44..'2.04. In the middle of the paragraph, it states that the purpose of the
ordinance is to minimize the 'impacts of the event and "place responsibility upon the holder
... to clean up trash and debris associated with the event." Presumably the ordinance is
*b*l* on the holder than simply piclLina up trash and
desicyned to haw\7e a arreater responsi 1 ity up10-n
debris but instead meet the conditions mandated by the ZA.
■ Section K.2-44.204. Same section, discussion of the right of free speech. While presumably
such rights might be impacted from some activities, Mr. Sher is encragincT in 'commercial
speech,' not 'free speech'which the lav, allows regulation.
■ Purpose should incorporate the langu.a�e from other sections 'in the ordinance which
discusses "minimize disturbance or inconvenience to the neighbors and the neighborhood".
82-44.206 Definitions
■ 'temporary event' is bit vague. I presume this would
8''-44.206(h). Definition of oul
+ rysvn+IO* r%r nVTT r%V% r � n A%V � 119rea `0
LIA"L "Al "AICU " u, cL"y1jurt," u, LL UCL' Liullb a" VJAL PC11111L:
It can see one could argue that because the event was not 'up to a day' they did not need a
permit.
■ Ordinance or permit should define the maximum number of persons "on site" at the venue
in addition to the maximum number of participants/attendees. B37 doing this, the
maximum number of people involved in preparinU or cleaning up the venue can be
included.
IkMAC input to Temporary Events Ordinance
■ Need to define an "Outdoor Assemblage" ia such a way as to insure that it does not include
aatherinors inside a residence with attached decks where the fathering is principally inside
the residence but overflows onto the attached decks.
82-44.402 Permit Required
82-44.404 Exem tions
■ The maximum number of events allowed under the "exempt events" should be reduced.
■ Amplified sound should also be restricted at the"exempt events" such as weddings, etc.
■ .404(g). The ordinance should exempt all events at a religious facility, not just those
.sponsored by a religious entity.
■ The ordinance should consider exempting events at schools and public parks
■ R6 is residential but also includes churches, parks, and schools. These are authorized
spaces for larore events. People who buy next to a school, church orparb can reasonably
expect some level of disruption from events.
82-44.406 App ication and Review
■ Section 8120-44.406(b)(9) I would think that the use of fireworks would require some other
type of County or State permit. I realize that 82-44.41? provides that temp. event permit
does not relieve the obligation to obtain other permits, but you may want to indicate in this
section that fireworks would require certain permits. (At least I would hope so.)
Section 82-44.406 (g)(1) Grounds for approval or conditional approval. The three stated
basis for review are good, but the reasons are not stated as to how this decision will be
made or what the ZA will consider in making this determination. There are also no 'notice'
requirements for impacted homeowners that an application is to be considered. If one
applies for the permit and answers all the questions', on what basis is the zoning
administrator going to deny or place restrictions, especially if be has no input from those
neighbors who may be impacted? The standard for review, if either the neighbors or the
promoter appeal, will be whether there was 'an abuse of discretion' in either not placing or
placing restrictions and arguably whether the ordinance was clear as to the basis for the
restrictions. Ido Like the fact that the findings are in the negative, 'that the event will not
create ... etc.'that places the burden on the promoter. However, I do not know if it is
reasonable for the ZA to make these findings without having, input from the neijhbors (or
the potential for input) as well as the ability to ask the promoter additional questions in
response to concerns raised by the neighbors or the application.
KMAC input to Temporary Events Ordinance
R Section 82-44.406(]}?. Grounds for denial. If the basis for approval is NOT found based
upon but none of the ]rounds for denial is affirmatively found, in(2)(2), MUST the
applical'on be approved or denied or only issued per conditions? I would state that if the
conditions in (cr)(I) HAVE BEEN MET, the application may still be denied based upon the
]rounds listed in
(g)(2).
■ .406(b)13. A traffic management plan should be required as part of the permit application
(including a stac.1mo,
plan).
■ .406(d)Want separate permits for each events.
82,44.408 Conditions
■ There should be time limits for after-event activities.
■ Noise limits for.holidays should be the same as for Sundays.
■ .408(a)(13) Time limits must include "set up" and "tear down" times to limit overall time of
the impact of the event.
■ .408(b). The chart showing the maximum allowable exterior noise levels (needs to be
corrected).
0 .408(b)(1) Monitoring of the noise levels shall be performed by a person especially
qualified in the use of noise monitoring equipment.
■ Having restrictions be based on the lot size considerations or R-6 zonmcr issues may provide
the opportunity to have more specific provisions in the ordinance.
■ The conditions of approval should contain the option for a ZA to require a traffic
mana.a.ement plan and an event staoincr plan.
■ There should be no amplified sound for any event.
■ Noise levels permitted without a Land Use Permit are too high.
82-44.410 Duration
■ Section 82-44.410(b). I think it important to state that if aa temporary event is issued for up
to four events, each event must meet the conditions imposed or subsequent permitted events
may be revoked, per 82-44.416.
IiMAC input to Temporary Events Ordinance
■ Individual permits should be issued for each event.
52-44.412 Other Permits and Licenses
82-44.414 Land Use Permit Required
■ The maximum number of events (allowed in one year) in residential areas should be
reduced (unless a LUP is obtained).
■ There should be a greater time between events (without a LUP).
■ The number of events, the number of people on site (including all staff, musicians,
participants and audience) should be reduced and the number of events allowed within 45
days should be decreased (unless a LUP obtained).
■ Number of people without a Land Use Permit should not exceed 100.
827-44.416 Enforcement
■ Section 82-44.416. I would make the permit REQUIRE the applicant allow the event to be
monitored by law enforcement officers, under 82-44.416. Currently, it says 'may' and I can
see a homeowner refusing law enforcement on the ground that it was not a stated condition
of their permit. I think you want that option, as part of the permit process, whenever
anyone is granted a permit.
■ Private richt of action. As written, only the County may enforce these provisions. The
ordinance also does not provide for any stated fine or infraction for violation of its
provisions.
■ Applicant should pay for any enforcement costs (such as police services or monitoring
noise).
■ A neutral party should be at the event to monitor the activities.
■ When a new temporary event is put into a neighborhood, it disrupts those neighbors more.
Therefore, the burden of monitoring the event for compliance with the conditions of
approval should fall fully on the applicant. There should not be an effort to balance the
equities between neighbors and the applicant for the event. The county should err on the
4
KMAC input to Temporary Events Ordinance
side of the neighbors since there are other venues available for these temporary events and
the county has a stake in maintainingthe residential nature of an R6 neighborhood.
82-44.602 Application Fee
82-44.604 Cleanup
82-44.606 General
m e•
CNG Analysis of the Second Draft of the Events Permit-- 4/21/2005
Members of the Coveny Neighborhood Group have reviewed two drafts of the"Temporary Events" Ordinance No. 2005-,including the most
tr
recent one.Members met with Supen7lsor Gioia to discuss the first draft. We note that no substantive,suggestions made in that meeting have
been'incorporated in the current draft. Simply,this permissive or e is-unenforceable and places an unreasonable and unnecessary burden
upon co .t0 es to prove malfeasance. CNG is opposed to this law.
1. 82-44.204 Purpose(Draft p. 1): CNG members are opposed to the purpose of the proposed ordinance: "...to establish procedures for the
evaluating,permitting, and regulating short-term activities and events that are conducted on or upon public property or public righrs-of-
05
wav, Or that are conducted on private property and generate or invite considerable public participation or spectators."Ms proposed
or AGUI. e is bad law. It subjects a large numberof residents of CCC to a new regime of officious and unnecessary regulation of activities
the37 have previously carried on with no impact on their conunumtles. Just as important,it opens the door to numerous new abuses of land
use,notpossible under current zoning law. We,feel that this proposed law creates an altemative to the zoning code that removes
protections it provides for residents of private property. We do not believe that it meets any Teal need of the overwhelming majority of
CCC residents. We think that it has been simulated by special interests. It will inconvenience the many with needless nuisance regulation
and open the door to abuse.
We contest the claim made in 82-44.204 Purpose(Draft p. 1)that "'Because these land uses are temporwy, thev have nealigible or not
W 6
permanent effect on the environment, and their potential impact on adjoining properties is either minimal or can be offset by conditions.
The language of the proposed ordinance defining events and setting out provisions for application, approval,appeal of approval,and
enforcement will actually make it possible to permit potentially great impacts on adjoining properties and is too vague to establish the
conditions that would protect private property,from the consequences of inappropriate land uses on adjoining properties. It treats all
property,public or private,commercial or residential M' the same way It removes protections from commercial activities in residential
activities. As such it provides the means to achieve what it purports of prevent. CNC-feels that this law is uimecesswy and onerous. The
current zoning laws are fally adequate to regulate both temporary and permanent land uses.
82-44.206 Definitions (Draft p. .20: CNG members contest that applicability of the definitions of"Event" (section c).,"Expressive
activit )7 the proposed ordinance. "Event"fails to distinguish
(section d), and"Temporary event" (section d)to the land Uses regulated b
between"commercial", and"residential"'activities. "ExTressive activity`,introduces the spurious implication that the current zoning laws
violate the I't Amendment of-die Constitution of the United States,which CNG members(and the current Zoning A hdmtrator)feel is
untrue.and inappropriate. "Temporary event"fails to take into account planned series of commercial style events any one of which can be
construed in isolation as"temporary" when if fact they co" rnprise a planned,long-term land use,not unconnected, one time events.This
allows commercial exTioitation of residential property, which would be disruptive and result in loss of propleM7 value.
82-44.406 Application and Review (g,) (1) Grounds for Approval or Conditional Approval (Draft page 6).- The wording of all three
subsections (A)-(C)of this ke)7paragraph are vague and allow for subjectivity,error, and abuse. Theyy provide the Zoning Administrator
no objective standards for making decisions. The preceding sections describing the applications procedure fail to make the applicant
prove that s/he will act"reasonabb?' and limit the impact of the event on adjoining properties.The,intent of this section(and,indeed,of
the entire draft ordinance)is to"permit"not to regulate land use and protect residents from abuse.
4. 82-44.406 Application and Review (h) (Draft page 8): This section describes the procedure for appealing the approval of an application.
The entire procedure is adequate. It places unreasonable limitations on the appellant. It puts neighbors of the applicant M' a defensive
position of overtur=n a decision that has already been made(based on an application process that does not require the applicant to prove
the reasonableness of the event). CNG feels that this could easily be abused. Administrators with limited information will be loath to
overturn decisions.Tley may err on the side of requiring unreasonable evidencp.,of the di on and damage the event would cause. h is
ease to claim that something will not take place.By the same token,it is difficult to argue about what has not yet taken place. The
disadvantage is clearly),with the adj ol .Ig residents not the applicant.
A U AMY% 0♦JMVn"nV- VWVII
V V"%," " V.1"A V %.,V L
-44.40-8 Condifions. (nI (1.1;)Timp n1arp grid mninnpr rpctripfin"c nn fhp viep ref 2,M1nI;f-*vPrI anvvvid -C-1 (11)X 7 +
82 _.1 � 1%.'Jra.*0ftwa jL%.,%QL%AA�ftU %XAft %PAL&%.0 %.&LV%0%R-A F L3""AA ka %^., k")
permit is granted for any event in a residential zoning district,it is granted subject to the following noise control conditions (Draft
page 10): These sections describe the regulation of amplified sound and other noise control. These provisions are wholly inadequate.
CNG feels that amp ed sound should never be allowed at outdoor events M* residential districts. At the very least,there ought to be a
separate permit process for the use of sound amplificatiom with pct conditions, standards, moi-dto-ring,and appeal procedure.The
Sheriff of CCC did not want to enforce a Noise Ordinance. There is no reason to believe that he or his suirogates will monitor and enforce
-these noise.provisions.
6. 82-44.416 Enforcement: The pro-Ndsions for monitoring events are completely. inadequate. To be blunt CNG does not believe that any
adequate monitoring procedures would ever be followed. We also do not believe that ani7 of the policing agencies involved would enforce
this ordinance.linance. We have struggled to get CCC to enforce the Zoning Code for over 5 years. Our success has been mixed.We do not
believe that this ordinance will be anymore effectively enforced. In fact, since some the Count7 departments that have been kq in
enforcing the Zoning laws would not be involved,we believe that enforcement would be much worse.
In summa.T)I, we think this is unnecessary,unenforceable, and a source of over-regulation of law-abiding citizens while it permits abuses by
bad actors. We are opposed to this law.
Page1of1
Aw, ch m e,,nt' 3
Ray Barraza
From: "Marilyn Stollon" <rnstolion@earthfink.net>
To: <ray barraza@msn.corn>
Cc: <JGioia@bos.co.contra-costa.ca.us>
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 70-12 PM
Subject: event ordinance
We have reviewed both the proposed ordinance and the response by CNC-
regarding this ordinance and we are fully in agreement with CNG's
position that this ordinance is still driven by one special interest
and does not serve the needs of the county residents as a whole.
It permits Mr. Sher to hold events: same number and same amount of
people as before. after all. he wont schedule them in the rainyseason
.so they are crammed into the spring/summer.
Real1y,when it comes down to it,how many residents in the county- can
or would host an event or pare of 2)0-300 in their home. ... a
wedding? Christmas pare.maybe? once in a while,but not on the scale
and number of times of Mr. Sher's amphitheater. This ordinance Just
doesn't apply to the average needs of the mane who live in the county.
There should be NO amplified sound for any event,let alone an outdoor
event,this is not the shoreline amphitheater, or UC stadium.yet
amplified sound is included in the ordinance as a given. Just because
he installed it doesnt mean he should be able to use it !!
The word"un reasonable" is used through out,ven7 hard to prove,what
is reasonable or unxeasonable??. very subjective and hard to define.
The fact is Mi. Sher bamboozled the Count ithh*is permit for "garden
improvements",ho-w can we count on the county to monitor him no-w.
hi ghl), doubtful.
We bought our home in Kensington,because it is, a tasteful.quiet
residential area with good home values we chose not to live by the El
Cerrito HS or UC football stadium because we didnt want the traffic,
noise etc. We expected zoning laws to protect us This ordinance will
not improve home values,,it could be detrimental.
This ordinance sadly,permits Mr. Sher to have his events, it doesnt
protect the residents from having to endure them and along with it the
invasion of their pn'vaq,loss of parkina spaces. and the chaos it
brings to a area with a winding street with no parking and blind
curves.
If Mr. Sher was not rich and politically connected,would we be even
havm' g this conversation?I think,not.
Sincerely
Marilyn Stollon
John Gaccione
12- Eldridge Court at Coventnr
5/1 q/n.;
A++d Ck rA Pr\4
Statement of Opposition
Temporary Events Ordinance
My name is Jack Walker and I live at 560 Coventry Road My property is adjacent to
500 Coventry Road. The impetus for this ordinance is directly related to the property located at
500 Coventry Road The ordinance would legitimize the musical concerts held at this location
which the county has previously determined are in violation of the, county ordinance code. This
temporary events ordinance guts the county authority in this regard.
Quoting from a previous county ruling regarding 500 Coventry. The courts have
%..0,
consistently upheld zoning regulation giving the police power a broad and liberal construction.
Case authority is cited(1974 U.S. Supreme Court in Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas)
The type of activity that this ordinance will permit would have a direct effect on the
value of my home which I have constantly improved over the past 25 years as well as 'Interfere.
with the quiet enjoyment of my home.
It is the county's responsibility to maintain the character of a residential neighborhoods
in an R-6 residential district and this proposed ordinance absolves the county of that
responsibility. This is not fight
Jack Walker Ve
560 Coventry Road
ILensington California
Affachvnent 5
Personal Statement of Leonard Schwartzburd
As a member of the Coventry Neighborhood Group I have reviewed
two drafts of the "Temporary Events" Ordinance No. 2005-, including
the most recent one. Members met with Supervisor John Gioia to
discuss the first draft. I strongly oppose this ordinance.
I am opposed to the purpose of the proposed
a
ordinance:
82-44.204 Purpose (Draft p. 1): ..to establish procedures for the
a '
evaluating, permitting, and regulating short-term activities and events
that are conducted on or upon public property or public rights-of-way,
or that are conducted on private property and generate or invite
considerable public participation or spectators."
My reasons for m position:
Y
The proposed ordinance is bad law. Its stated purpose is directly
aimed at permitting a single special interest. In order to obscure that
fact it regulates events that are not and never have been an issue,
thereby depriving the community of freedom. It subjects Contra Costa
County residents to a new regime of officious and unnecessary
regulation of activities they have previously carried on with no impact
on their communities, e.g. garage sales. Just as important, it opens
the door to numerous new abuses of land use, not possible under
current zoning law. i Teei that 'the ciraii ordinance layers on an
alternative to the zoning code that removes protections that code
provides for residents of residential property depriving them of
established property rights. The draft "flattens" or obscures the
distinctions between residential and commercial zones. Ido not
believe that it meets any legitimate interest of the overwhelming
majority of CCC residents.
The claim that these events should in any way be
considered as "temporary" is a distorted use of
language.
82-44.204 Purpose (Draft p. 1 ) that "Because these land uses are
temporary, they have negligible or not permanent effect on the
environment, and their potentia! impact on adjoining properties is
either minimal or can be offset by conditions."
My reasons for this position:
The fact that a special venue of commercial proportions has been
created for a particular number of events per year on a single permit
and on an ongoing basis makes the concept of "temporary" as used
here an oxymoron.
A planned series of commercial-style events comprises a planned,
long-term land use, not an unconnected, one-time event. Is one
concert a week, or one every 45 days at the Fillmore Auditorium a
temporary event. This ordinance allows commercial exploitation of
residential property, which would-be disruptive and result in loss of
property value.
The language of the proposed ordinance defining events and setting
out provisions for application, approval, appeal of approval, and
enforcement is vague and unenforceable. It will make it far easier to
permit great and inappropriate impacts on adjoining residential
properties.
hold that this law is unnecessary and onerous. The current zoning
laws are fully adequate to regulate both temporary and permanent
Iql IU 1.�5C�.
The term "Expressive activity" as used here. is the hook
on which to reel in the "RED HERRING" of a First
Amendment free speech issue in the use of the special
interest venue.
82-44.206 Definitions (Draft p. 2, "Expressive activity" (section d),
My Reason for this position.
It is clear that there are appropriate time and place limitations on
First Amendment freedom of speech rights. No one has the
right to forced entry into the home or property of another person
to impose their "expressive activity" on the other person.
The grounds for approval and disapproval are unduly
vague,
82m44.406 Application and Review (g) (1) Grounds for Approval
or Conditional Approval (Draft page 6):
My Reasons for this position.
The wording of all three subsections (A)-(C) of this key paragraph are
vague and allows for subjectivity, error, and abuse. They provide the
Zoning Administrator no objective standards for making decisions. .
This puts our public servants in a very unfair position.
The preceding sections describing the applications procedure fail to
require the applicant to make a credible commitment that he or she
will act IL reasonably 71 and appropriately limit the impact of the event on
adjoining properties. The apparent intent of this section (and, indeed,
of the entire draft ordinance) is to permit-- not to regulate land use
and protect residents from abuse
The procedures for application and review places
excessive burdens on the community and insufficient
demand on the permit applicant.
82=44.406 Application and Review (h) (Draft pace 8):
My reasons for this position.
This section describes the procedure for appealing the approval of an
application. The entire procedure is inadequate. It places
unreasonable time limitations on the appellant by providing
insufficient time for a community to appeal, and this is an organized
community response requiring time for an orderly process. It places
a burden on the community by requiring a fee to appeal. It puts
neighbors of the applicant in a defensive position of overturning as
unreasonable a decision that has already been made based on an
application process that does not require the applicant to provide
credible evidence of the reasonableness of the manner of the
conduct of the event. I feel that this could easily be abused and is
unfair to the community and the public servants expected to
administer the ordinance. In the absence of clear standards it is
difficult to argue about the effects of what has not yet taken place.
The issuance of blocks of permits for multiple events places the
burden on the neighbors to prove a violation in sufficient time for the
subsequent event permits to be revoked. The burden should be on
the applicant to demonstrate no violations in order to be considered
for another permit. The disadvantage all through this ordinance is
clearly with the adjoining residents not the applicant.
The ordinance's regulations restricting sound levels are
unreasonably permissive, and even if enforced would
violate neighbor's rights to the peaceful use of their
property.
82-44.408 Conditions,. (a) (15) Time, place and manner
restrictions on the use of amplified sound & (b) When a
temporary event permit is granted for any event in a residential
zoning district, it is granted subject to the following noise
control conditions (Draft page 10): 82m44.416 Enforcement:
My reasons for this position.
These sections describe the regulation of amplified sound and other
noise control. These provisions permit levels of sound disturbing to
reasonable individuals. I feel that amplified sound should never be
allowed at outdoor events in residential districts.
The ordinance provides that the noise levels specified are applied to
the outside of a dwelling. This ignores neighbors' rights to the
peaceful use of the outside areas of their residential property.
The provisions for monitoring sound levels provided for in the
ordinance are completely inadequate. We do not believe that any of
the policing agencies involved would enforce this ordinance for two
reasons. The enforcing agencies do not have enough money in their
budgets to pay for the manpower involved, and neither law
enforcement nor county staffs have adequate technical competence
in the field of professional sound engineering. A state licensed
independent sound engineer would be required for monitoring the
complex and vague standards set out in the ordinance.
The inadequacy of the enforcements provisions is highlighted by the
ordinance's enabling language. When it comes to enforcement the
ordinance says that the enforcing agencies "MAY" monitor the event,
rather than using the word "SHALL" of mandated enforcement. Will
the agencies exercise their OPTION to monitor or enforce the
conditions rmi when ey e the resources to do
SO?
In summary, I think this ordinance is unnecessary, unenforceabi
and that it over-regulates law-abiding citizens while it permits abuses
of the property rights of neighbors and allows commercialization of a
`• quiet and peaceful neighborhood. I am strongly opposed to this
ordinance.
Page 1 of I
cK m eA 61
Ra-y-Barraza
From: "UUCB" <resources@uucb.org>
To: <raybarraza@msn.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 3:32 PM
Subject: proposed ordinance and church status
Dear Mr. Barr
to
in re:., onse to the letter that the church received about the proposed
.e. . I r1r14
countywicle i ernporar�7 Events Ordinance would you please clarifT the statu
of the church in relation to this ordinance. Item(g)under exemptions, sails
"'An event sponsored by a religious entit�7 held at the religious entitY s
'facilit)7". I'm-v�fondering what"s ponsored b)T refers to. Please cl a . -.r'wh-at
"sponsored
events are under the umbrell a of the church i.e. are cons
b-v"the church.
The church both uses its facilities for its own programs and events, and
rents space to non-profits, such as the Kensington Education Foundation and
the Contra Costa Chorale,for thein activities and events. We also rent our
facilities for various "n'tes of passage"- weddings,memorial Sen7ices
bar/bat mitzvahs or other coming of age ceremonies, child dedications, etc.
The Montessori F anu J)T School and the Sk7Ttown Preschool,who both lease
buildings from us to house their schools, occasionallif, hold events --either
at their schools or in our church facilities.
Mand thanks for dour response. If it is easier to give me a call.,please
feel free to do so at the phone number below.
Regards-
Margot Shefffier
Resources Coordinator
unitarian Univeralist Church of Berkeley
One Lawson Road
Kensington, CA 94707
11",S0 U FGe SUI U LICAT o r ur
510-5,25-0302 ext 30?
• A�ac�rnen-f' 7
Kensington Improvement Club
c/o John McKenna, Pres.
17 Ardmore Road, Kensington, CA 94707
(510) 526-360:5
...
r�n
.) May 2005
Kensington Municipal Advisory Council
c/o 248 Amherst
Kensington, CA 94707
Attention: Ray Barraza
Re: Proposed Temporary Events Ordinance Affecting Contra Costa County
Dear Ray Barraza:
I write to you on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Kensington Improvement Club
(KIC), the oldest civic organization in Kensington, an umncorporatedd community in West
Contra Costa County. The Board has serious concerns over a Draft Temporary Events
W
Ordinance which is being sponsored by County Supervisor, John Gioia. This Draft
Ordinance comes in response to an ongoing situation in our town, but will affect all
unincorporated areas of the County.
A Kensington homeowner named Danny Scher has installed an amphitheatre which seats
hundreds of people on the downslope parcels of his home, and has been holding periodic
amplified, professionally lit concerts there. Concerts are advertised,tickets are sold to
the events to hundreds of customers and food and alcoholic beverages are also sold. (Mr.
Scher's previous work background is as a rock concert promoter with the legendary Bill
Graham.) The neighborhood is zoned R-6, and is picturesque and ordinarily quiet. Mr.
1
Scher's affected neighbors have formed a group called the Coventry Neighbors Group
(CNG). CNG has opposed the concerts on the grounds that they are commercial activities
and cause 'inconveniences and disturbances seriously impairing quiet enjoyment of their
homes. Up to noml, the County has taken the position that the ainphitheatre, is not an
ancillary use of Mr. Scher's residence, and that he needs to obtain a use permit for each
concert. Scher has not applied for the permits, and the County has fined him for the
events that have taken place without the permits.
The ILIC Board supports the Coventry Neighbors Group in their position that Mr. Scher's
ampilneci, professionally lit, commercial style concerts are inappropriate in a residential
neighborhood. The Board believes that the Draft Ordinance has serious deficiencies, and
overall if passed, would actually legalize the type of concerts that Mr. Scher currently
holds. The Board notes that Mr. Scher has obtained the support of Sen. Don Perata for his
position, and that the issue has been politicized. Pressure has been placed upon the Board
of Supen7isors to pass legislation aimed at legitimizing Mr. Scher's type of activities M*
derogation. of the rights of nearby homeowners.
Page 2.
Letter to KMAC
Apart from the foregoin rdinance,has serious e cies. Although the
Draft perfuncto es that there is no need for an environmental im t statement,
because vents it allows are temporary, clearly, the net effect of the Ord ce would
be ange the zoning currently in place, allowing commercial activities in an area.
ucevents/projects which are "temporary" must be evaluated on a cumulative basis.
Moreover, where as here, there is serious public controversy and opposition to the
proposed legislation, an environmental impact investigation is appropriate.
Some other deficiencies includz.:.-��
Requiring that groups such as KIC, the Gouts, Hilltop Grade School,
Arlington -K-efisingtonUnitarianand other civic
Community Church,
groups apply for a permit to hold events, since the Draft covers both private
and public property, and would presumably include our Community Center;
Allows an applicant to apply for 4 event permits at a time —this is excessive;
Allows events to be held back to back—the spacing of events should be
longer between occurrences;
-ip 1 — such a sound system is
Has no prohibition on amplified sound at events
intrusive upon neighbors and should be prohibited;
Z:�
Requires that the County and local law enforcement monitor and enforce its
provisions without providing for the cost of increased usage of police, fire and
emergency resources to be shifted to the applicant—this should be a condition
of grantinga permit.
Page 3
Letter to KNIA
i
.,,,..,---This proposed Draft Ordinance allows activities which are clearly wrong for a r �dential
�- area. There are many appropriate venues for the concerts events that Mr. Scher has,,,been
presenting, and he is an expert at securing such places. There is no need for him to`\
subject his ffteneighbors to these imposing events. Although this legislation is aimed at
% fixing things for a single individual, it will affect civic, religious and other oraaniza ons
� throughout the entire County, and set bad precedent. We urge you to review the aft
Temporary Events Ordinance carefully, and to make your thoughts known e
Supervisors and Mr. John Oborne, Contra Costa County Co=u evelopment, 651
---P-i�St�h Floor, North Wing, Martinez, CA 945 5� ' :jobor@cd.cccounty.us
Very truly yours,
John McKenna
President
cc: John Gioia,, District 1, Supervisor, Contra Costa County
Senator Tom Torlak-son
John Obome, CCC Conununi*ty Development
Coventry Neighborhood Group
Kensington Community Services District
• P a g efto 1 of
Ray Barraza
Front: "J Folger-Brown (Toni)it <jfolg erbrown@ comcast.net>
To: <raybarraza@msn.c:om>; <cell amfc@ aol.co,m>; <knig htsen@knightsen.net>; <bpgeorgegcomcast.net>;
<leightonconst@aol.com>; <dianeleite@yahoo.com>; <glomagleby@sbcglobal.net>; <rmoli@msn.com>;
<ray787@pacbell.net>; <transithopeful@yahoo.com>; <wmboyd1@aol.com>; <bwilgus@ehsd.cccounty.us>
Cc: <JGiola@bos.co-contra-costa.ca.us>; <gayie@bos-co.contra-costa.ca.us>; <dist3@ bos.co.contra-costa.ca.us>.
<dist4@bos.co.contra-costa.ca.us>; <dist5@bos.co.contra-costa.ca.us>
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 12.-43 PM
Attach: Event Ord. CNG Recommendations 5-6-05.doc
subject: Proposed Event Ordinance for residential areas of unincorporated CCC
IVIA.C's and Co=unity Groups:
It is important for you to know that our comments reflect the 'interest of the Coventry, Neighborhood Group (CNG), in Kensington. Our
community has struggled for five years with the problem that this proposed ordinance has been written to supposedl)7 resolve, 'We believe that
Senator Don Perata has asserted political pressure upon Contra Costa County to satisfy the desires ands interest of one resident so that he
can continue to host outdoor amplified commercial styTle concerts for over 300 people at his residence. Currently these concerts are considered
a land use violation and fines have been issued. This proposed ordinance as-written would make these large noisy concerts legal.
We are contacting you because we believe that this proposed event ordinance is being fast tracked in a way that excludes commuru*V in tit.
The Kensington MAC has contacted churches and other civic groups and it is clear that they will be impacted by this ordinance I in the same
wail these groups in vour community would be affected.should it pass as written. CNG uraes you to carefully review thisproposed
ordinance and make your make your concerns and opinions known to John Oborne,see below. and vour Supervisor.
Below is a letter that we have sent to John Oborrie. Contra Costa County Community Development,651 Pine St.. 40,Floor,Nordi Wing,
011 jobor(a'),cd.Martinez CA945-5-occcounty.us
This letter is followed by a summary of five changes that we have recommended that we believe are critical to maintam' ing neighborhood
standards in our residential community. The attachment is a copy of the proposed ordinance that includes comments(M blue.)a.'j3d
recommended changes(�� 1•L,.r.:i�llt`:;).
L etter to OB ORNE
Mail 6, 2003)
John Oborne,,
Contra Costa County Community Development
651 Pine St., 4 Floor) North Wing
Martinez. 9 4 5 5)3
j o b or(a),cd.cc county.us
-1 -
In Re: Temporary Events Ordinance and 500 Coventry Road(owner Danny Scher)
Dear Mr. Oborne.-
The,coon-y has previously deterrni ed that the owner use of the stage and amphitheater he constructed on the above referencedproper�r to
hold musical concerts was not an accessory use to a single family dwelling in an R.-6 residential zone without a land use ermit.jp (which the
owner never applied for). The owner did apply for Alegal nonconfomu'ng status(d),for the property which the count7 denied as well as his
appeal of the denial. During the ensuing years the count�, fined the propeM owner on three separate occasions for holding musical concerts in
I C*
violation of the county!=sR-6 zo=* g ordinance. The owner=s appeal of the fines was denied.
The Coventry? 1
Neighborhood group (CNG)has concurred with and supported the counter=s position. CNG has consistently,,m aintaiped that
outdoor*a� L_UU11LX1 Lb I t:aLlUilliEnyru I: n a residential
neigh or
e orhood.
:f
The A..nddraft of the Temporary Events Ordinance (EO)proposed by Supervisor John Gioia. as currentl)T-worded. would allow the propeM�
owner to hold the type of events that the county has determined to be in violation of the count, ordinance. CNG has been advised that the
purpose of the proposed EO is to put the count7 on a more solid legal ground (as opposed to amending the,current ordinance to correct an)7
perceived weaknesses.)because the county is not sure it could prevail should the property! owner challenge the current ordinance in a court of
=1.4 n Inc
Page 2 of 01
law.
CNG is opposed to this proposed ordinance. It is the count responsibilit�T to maintain the character of R-6 residential neighborhoods and
not implement an ordinance to benefit a single propert 7 owner to the detriment of others regardless of outside pressures or political influence.
Nevertheless; CNG feels compelled to comment on this proposed EO. The ordinance and CNG=s comments are attached.
Please note that CNG's comments and recommendations are limited to permitted uses at events held on residential propert)7 in residential
districts; and do not include events that would require a permit that are held on church properties or by civic groups (PTA)that would host over
50 people and be open to the public.
Coventry Neighborhood Group
C/O J F olger-BrownVOO
555 C oventr57 Rd
Kensington; CA 94707
Hard coPy to follow b3T US Mail.
Recommendations:
I) That to m aint e concept of temporary event,each event should require a separate application and p ennit instead of a maximum o
foul-events on We emit covering a 12 month period.
f
2 Reduce the number-of temporary events to be held on residential properties in residential.districts,from four to two per 12 month period.
P _ P P
�) Reduce the maximum number of attendees/participants from 200 X00 to a total of 125 per event,including e-vent staff and entertainers,
etc.
4) `,Disallow the use of sound amplification equipment on residential properties in residential districts.
5) Require that CCC and law enforcement shall be responsible for monitoring and enforcement and that the applicant rnustpay for
additional eorcement and monitoring costs.
r'
1
ORDINANCE NO. A20005 DRAFT
TEMPORARY EVENTS
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows (omitting the parenthetical footnotes from
the official text of the enacted or amended provisions of the County Ordinance Code):
SECTION I. SUMMARY. This ordinance establishes procedures for evaluating, permitting, and regulating
short-term activities and events that are conducted on or upon public property or public ricrhts-of-way, or that
are conducted on private property and Generate or invite considerable public participation or spectators.
r(NOTE: this Would replace existing zoninglaws.'
SECTION H. Chapter 82-44 is added to the County Ordinance Code, to read:
Chapter 82-44
TEMPORARY EVENTS
Article 82-44.2
General Provisions
.82-44,202 Title, This chapter is known as the Temporary Events Ordinance of Contra Costa County. (Ord.
2005- § 2.)
82-44.204 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish procedures for evaluating, permitting, and
re,oulating short-term activities and events that are conducted on or upon public property or public rights-of-
way, or that are conducted on private property and generate or invite considerable public participation or
spectators. Because these land uses are temporary, they have-neorli,alble or no permanent effect on the
A
environment and their potential impact on adjoininaproperties is el minimal m' *mal or can be offset by
conditions. The procedures authorize the zoning administrator to approve permits for temporary events and
to require permit conditions or deny permits when necessary to protect the public. The procedures are
necessary to protect and promote the health, safety, and welfare of the public, temporary event participants,
and nearby residents. The procedures are intended to minimize the impacts of temporary events on the
normal free flow of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, to provide the County with adequate time to logistically
accommodate temporary events, and to place responsibility on the holder of a temporary event permit to
clean up trash and debris associated with the temporary event. The procedures are also intended to allow for
I the . i . f% .,.
content-neutr W-' time, place and manner regulation or temporary events while proieciin�ine rights or citizens
to engage in free speech expressive activities that are protected by the First Amendment of the United States
16
Constitution and Article 1, Section 2... of the California Constitution. (Ord. .2.00.51 2.)
82-44.206 Definitions. For purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases have the following
meanings
= I
(a) "Athletic event" means an occasion in which a group of persons collectively encraue 'in a sport or form of
"� 0-ft. C_0�
physical exercise on a County street or right-of-way, that obstructs, delays, or interferes with the normal flow
of vehicular traffic, or does not comply with traffic laws and controls. Athletic events include bicycle and
foot races.
demartment. The application form shall be sismed and verified by the applicant if an individual-, a general
p %NPO
partner authorized to sign on behalf of a partnershi an officer or director authorized to sign on behalf of a
p
corporation; or a participant authorized to siorn on behalf of a joint venture or association. The applicant must
be aqualified applicant pursuant to Section. 26-?.1604.
(b) An applicant for a temporary event permit shall provide the following information;
(1) The name, address, and telephone number of the applicant and an alternate contact person.
6 a
(2) If the event is proposed to be sponsored by an organization, the name, address and telephone number
of the organization and the authorized head of the organization and the name of any other person or
entity benefiting from the event.
(3)) The name, address and telephone number of the person•who will be present and in charge of the event
on the day of the event.
(4) Thep e of event (e.cy., a concert or arts and crafts show)
(5) Date. nfld.. startiner and ending time of the event including the time required to prepare and
cleanup the venue.
the(6) Location of tne event including its street address and boundaries.
(7) number of attendees and participants at the event.
(8) The type and estimated number of vehicles and structures that will be used at the event, if any.
(9) Descri tion of an), sound amplification equipment or fireworks proposed for use at ent.. 11
l � t '!'�'' t'tl.� t.':�" � 11� f'C'_}�G1:'l ft'� �..�.-1 �C'•f',1got
'd II,.C' JI
�,- .� '��' .• 1`..r
I Lo,
-1 (--JVV77TS, IS 7)7*0177*1)1,��'�:w7
71 it-7 P C'.71
aT ?
(1 0) �i�hether any
food will be served or sold at the event and if applicable, the time and manner in
which caterers and caterincr trucks will be used. L - A
Y"t"1!' tib/ t'• / lr �♦ ' �l 7l,`,1aJf., '�;Jc '.�� ' 7'1 7 1 1 J>
rV171,77*1?1'A7-77
L
{1 I} Whether any beverages. mcludm* u alcoholic beveracres, will be served or sold at the event, and
. -I 11'}�. � �� -r. r..... �s r •(.�r c'" xE- 4•. �. f
,�
!/I'
whether any such sales will be wholesale or retail. U-1/1" .
i; 11 r
()l tl'-J '7117 WMW` (Tf "I
S' t.
_r.....-... .S
'2.) Whether unarmed security or event monitors will be employed at the event.
(1*_*3) P aarkin.a, traffic and crowd control measures proposed for the event.
(14) The number and type of events held at the venue in the precedincr ')4 months.
Aw
(1 5) A site plan showincr the size and location of property lines, sidewalks, streets, and improvements on
adjacent properties, clearly labeled and dra,�xn to scale.
(16) The time and acts required to prepare the venue for the event and the time and acts required
following,the event to clean up and restore the regular use of the venue.
(17) Provisions made for first aid and sanitary facilities.
(18) If the event is to occur along a route:
(A) The assembly point for the event;
(B) The time when participants will begin to assemble;
(C) The route to be traveled; and
(D)The number, types, and size of floats, band, or marching units, if any.
(19) Such other 'information as may be deemed necessary by the community development director
relative to the event for purposes of manaalne, traffic, parkin, public health and safety, or minimizing
any disturbance or inconvenience to the neighbors and the neighborhood.
Z�
(c) An application for a temporary event permit must be submitted at least 45) days before the proposed
event. The community development director may, for good cause, reduce the number of days in the
deadline for a particular application, provided that, in the community development director's opinion, a
reasonable time is allowed to conduct the necessary analysis and give. adequate notice to the public.
Examples of good cause include, but are not limited to:
(1) the proposed temporary event is in response to an occurrence whose timing did not reasonably
allow the applicant to file a timely application, and
(P42) the imposition of the time limitations would place an unreasonable restriction on the free speech
rights of the applicant.
IL
A a n:t pip n alp Fj=1 r- r% a ngaz:=it iLnt Qjlr:Xxyc 33:m il::3 F4::Il:lr 'Q:XXa:M1:C I N lilal
1US! tthl
L
X Zi 1A laid ]a Q 1 3 a Pt 3
C.A1-L-C L- i
mh.111 1111nlber /1% Calendar year at avenue .-Viai! io FF
i:Ma134dr1r, ilap Eck= Pgir-L ==a%=jar1Q9A A:XZPA*-t+
J_JLL%W0A"%W&%W00 LIXA%me 1.%W%1".LA%boo" X.L%a I l—"44-LA.%..I JL.A A.%-I I jj I L.I%wo%4 %boo V%.WA_LLo
(e) Once filed, the application shall become and remain a public record and open to the inspection of all
nprnn
'r L.0qr,
(f) The community development department shall review the application for completeness, and if deemed
incomplete, the applicant shall have five (5) calendar days from the date of notification of insufficiency, to
provide additional information as requested bV the community development department.
(or) Except as provided by section 82-44.406(8}(3)(Grounds for Mandatory Denial j, the zoninc.T administrator
may approve, conditionally approve or deny an application for a temporary event permit based on the
grounds specified insections 82-44.406(a)(1) and
(cr)(2). The zom*nc, administrator shall determine from a consideration of the application
or other evidence whether vrounds for approval, conditional approval or denial exist. 'Na' E' vei-v subjective
and permissive.
5
(1) Grounds for Approval or Conditional Approval
(A) The temporary event will not create an unreasonable impact on nearby neighbors` or
property owners' use of their property.
(B) The temporary event will not be detrimental to property or improvements in the area
adjacent to the temporary use.
(C) The temporary event will not otherwise unreasonably affect the public health, safety and
welfare.
(42M.) Grounds for Denial
(A) Information contained in the application, or supplemental information requested from the
applicant is found to be false in any material detail.
(B) The applicant fails to timely file the application form under section 8,',2.-44.406(c) or fails
to complete and submit the application form within five (5) calendar days after havM* 9
been notified of the additional information or documents required under section 82-
44.406(o.
(C) A violation of any term or condition of a temporary event permit previously issued within
the preceding 24 months to the applicant or for the private property venue.
(D)Another temporary event permit application has been received prior in time; or has
already been approved, to hold another event at the same time and place requested by the
applicant, or so close in time and place as to cause undue traffic congestion.
(E) The time, route, characteristics or size of the event will substantially interrupt the safe and
orderly movement of traffic contiguous to the event site or route, or disrupt the use of a
street at a time when it is usually subject to traffic congestion, or be detrimental to
property or improvements in the surrounding area, or otherwise unreasonably affect
nearby neighbors' use of their property. In making a deter=* ation under this
subsection, the zoning administrator will consider the public health, safety and welfare of
the neighbors and the applicant, and will strive to achieve a reasonable balance among
these factors.
(F) The concentration of persons, animals and/or vehicles at the venue, or the assembly and
disbanding areas around an event, will prevent proper police, fire, or ambulance services
to the venue and contiguous areas.
v
(G) The location of the event will substantially interfere with a previously granted
encroachment permit or with any previously scheduled construction or maintenance work
scheduled to take place upon or along County streets.
(H)When the grounds for denial of an application for permit specified in subsections (r2)(D)
through (2)(G) above can be mitigated by altering the date, time, duration; size, route, or
location of the event, the zoning administrator shall conditionally approve the application
6
upon the denying the application. If the grounds for denial cannot be mitigated by
imposing conditions, the permit shall be denied.
(3) Grounds for Mandatory. Denial. Notwithstanding sections 82-44.406(8)(1) and (g)(2), the zoning
administrator shall deny an application for a temporary event permit when any of the following
occur'.
(A) A temporary event permit previously issued wit the preceding 24 months to the
applicant or for the specific private property venue was revoked.
(B) The zoning administrator has made a finding of non-compliance with regard to a
temporary events permit previously issued within the preceding 24 months to the
applicant or for the specific private property venue for any of the follo�vin� T)ermit
.1L
violations'.
(1) Exceeding the allowable exterior noise limits.
(2) Duration of an event in a residential district extends at least .30 minutes beyond the
permitted time.
(3)Exceeding the maximum number of occupants or attendees specified in the permit.
10
(h) At least 1 5 days before the zoning administrator's decision on a temporary event permit application, the
community development department will mail to the applicant and to property owners within feet of the
venue a notice of tentative decision including the proposed permit conditions, if any. The tentative decision
pe
may be a1ppeale tote notice. An apal-must
board ofsupervisors within 15 days of the mailing date of the
be in writing, state the grounds for appeal, and 'include an appeal fee. Upon receipt of a properly filed
appeal, the community development department will schedule the appeal for the next available board of
SuDe so notify the appellants nIicant of the earing date and t' IT-.-r-vl �s meeting andtime. A tentative decision
becomes final it no Epim6`FvTfi1l`ed. (Ord. 2005- § 26".) . This process. that includes an appeal fee
pDoe is s imely
and a trip to M:artinez to uphold the appeal, assumes that residents will be available du1-ing this brief day
period to receive this information. There should be greater latiaide for the appeals process.
82-44.408 Conditions.
(a) The zoning administrator may condition the issuance of a temporary events permit by unposincy
L allu ally I UL aL C;
I t4 -P+ r%4A%A r%0-4 Is P.0%.90%^J-%-&ft 4.0%
.AL%o%P6 nq.,....A.%wo L,,,1,,..,%.0 A.A-L%.f A.A.%,0 %.0%_1 A-L an" 111"1111k.A U1 Lhe everl+, U11 UIUCULb'th--'- ai
necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, temporary event participants, and nearby
residents, to protect the safety of property, and maximize the control of traffic. The zoning administrator may
consult with public works, fire, and lain enforcement officials and impose reasonable conditions
requested by those officials. Conditions shall not restrict expressive activit)7 or the content of speech.
Conditions may include, but are not limited to,
(1) Alteration of the date, time, size. route or location of the event proposed on the application.
(2) Conditions concernina, the area of assembly and disbanding of parade or other events occurrinc,
along a route.
7
(3) Conditions concerning accommodation of pedestrian or vehicular traffic in lu Dut j �t
limited to,, restricting the event to only a portion of a street transversed.
(4) Conditions concerning arking, including but not limited to, requirements fc-r� ti � � " utt es
from park.ing areas to the venue.
(5) Conditions concerning traffic control including but not meted to requirements -ae use of
traffic cones or barricades.
(6) Requirements for provision of first aid or sanitary facilities.
(7) R equirements for use of event monitors and unarmed security responsible for Prov --)ntrol, fir.-
watch oreneral security, and evacuation of occupants.
(8) Conditions concerning maximum occupancy and number of attendees Uci i. . � ;'� ,t:�'
JIG-
based on t**()17Y1M-I'HI
-�-tic kilicr
Lit-YrMc-Ts, the size of the venue and for the purposes of minimizing impacts on trai
public health and safety, and mIniMI*zincr disturbance or inconvenience to the nes�ht1 and
�.
neicrhborhood.
C9) Requirements for providincr notice of permit conditions to event participants and ..qt -laents for
providinu notice of the temporary event to properties within 3 00 feet of the veno`L
C1 0) Restrictions on the number and type of vehicles, 'animals, or structures at the c7en-. d
by
ins p ection and approval of floats, structures, and decorated vehicles for fire safetyIre
department.
(11) Compliance with animal protection ordinances and laws.
1.290) Requirements for use of Qarbaae containers cleanup and restoration of County Drop
C13) Conditions limitm* g the duration of time and hours of the event (includin.a the t*- -.nare
mid cleanup the venue) 'in order to minimize impacts on traffic, parking, public hea..--.J.-a a.! fety.,
and minimize disturbance or inconvenience to the nelcrhbors and the neighborhood.
14 Conditions Conditions concernincy the serving or sale of alcoholic b everaaes at the event ajac'. if i- ary
*ctin(Dr nr nrnhihitincr the cnIt= or op--�7;rcw
to protect the public health, safety or welfare, rest.n %.0 %-*A L.0%W A%..f
A A
alcoholic beverages.
(1 5)
Ti .eplace and manner restrictions on the use of amplified. The use of amplified F -.�unc.
I I
temporary event is prohibited in a residential districts and will I'l OVI. a
condition of a temporary event permit.
(15) Amy other conditions deemed appropriate by the zoning administrator to minimize on
#I%rW
trartic, parkm* cr, public health and safety, and to minimize disturbance or inconvenient to ti
neighbors and neighborhood.
(b) When a temporary event permit is ranted for any event in a residential zoning district, it
9
is granted sub' ions:
ect to the noise control condit*J4-IF
(I) The event s I not generate or emit any noise or sound that exceeds any of the levels specified in
the table below measured at the exterior of any dwelling unit located on another residentialproperty.
The noise generated or emitted shall not exceed the levels specified '111 the table for the duration of
timespecifiedin the table. When exterior noise levels are taken, they shall be measured with a sound
level meter. Theer�mitpshall Incorporate the applicable "allowable exterior noise
levels" specified in the table into the permit conditions only for the duration of time allowed for the
event b y the permit. (e.g.5 if the permit provides that an event shall end by 7 p.m., the "'allowable
exterior noise levels"' under 9 a.m. to 8p.m.. shall beincorp orated into the conditions but the event
must end by 7 p.m.).
ALLOWABLE EXTERIOR.NOISE LEVELS
i'lC1
Cumulative Duration of 9 AM - 8 PM.".-.Y 1 11.1 8 PM - l 0 PM
Noise Fridays and Saturdays
3 0 rrd n. er hr. 60 dBA 55 dBA
15 mire. p er hr. 65 dBA 60 dBA
5 min- per hr. 70 dBA 65 dBA
I min, per hr. 75 dBA 70 dBA
Level not to b e
-"r 7 7-1 11ro 7)�*
exceeded at any time
pr LJ C 1 7M.
:�
it
. t r r,
amplified sound evif ohibitedol 7-
-PF
WF
V iff -J LA A.1 LJ L, %-J L.4 Z.-4.Ll -L LA LAJL 0%.L o LAJL.L%.A L-L.L L.%.01 1 J-J
P L 3 T1
(d) Permittees are subject to the terms and conditions of thepermit, and to all applicable local, state, and
federal laws. (Ord. 2005- § 2,M).)
82-44.410 Duration.
0
(a) A temporary event permit is valid for the t' e or times specified 'in the permit. A temporary event p ermit
0
lapses if not used within the time or tunes specified.
(b) �--s�5�e 13= ta� Fun,33f:temporary event permit may be crranted for t.L 1 J(•�� r=lf fit
7 `7 L!,
771 at a sincde venue t f i L I ) .,L..-(Ord. .2.005-
82-44.41.2 Other Permits and Licenses.
(a) The 'issuance of a temporary event pe it does not relieve anyone from.the oblicration to obtam* anN7 other
2 but not limited to encroachment ppermit or license required by this code or state law includinermits
environmental health permits, and state Alcoholic Beverage Controlp ermits.
9
(b) The issuance of any other permit or license does not relieve anyone from the obligation to obtain a
temporary event permit pursuant to this chapter. (Ord. 2005- § 2.)
82-44.414 Land Use Permit Required.
(a) An event under any of the occurrences below shall not be eligible for a temporary event permit and a
land use permit is required for an event if any of the following occur:
(I) '/* t a venue in the
€�e�rf J IV() events that required a temporary event permit were previously held a
same calendar year.
(2) More than ni-lo events will be held at a venue in a calendar year.
(2) More than two events will be held at a venue within a 45-day period.
(3) A.n event will last more than one day at a residence or more than three consecutive days at any
other location.
L T.JL%J.L%..# Llj-&"LA _0 W W Ij%WO%-.O jjj%wo vy"I LAoLoL.%w4.JLJL%4 LA.LA %.0 V%-WJL.L L. "A. Iwo LjI%.A%wOJLJL Lol L&I %.&A 0
(6) More than two events, with 2-) or more attencees, at each event, will be held at a venue in a
residential district within a calendar year.
zzzill 1-.n Laid pt a
'Y%Wora V V rN I MAIDE1 L.3"33E J-A LIJLA
e 0:M iv il6p
Ij
=XAMLr-A lu!kW
(8) A temporary event permitpreviously issued to the applicant or for the private property venue was
revoked within the preceding 24 months or the zoning administrator has made a finding of non-
Compliance for a violation under section 82-44.406(g)(3)(B) with reogard to a temporary event permit
previously issued to the applicant or for the private property venue within.the precedingr Avo N months.
(b) An application for a land use permit will be decided in accordance with article '2.6-2...'2.0 of
this code and the provisions of section 82-44.414(a) shall not chancre the requirements for
a land use permit under Article 26-.2..20. (Ord. '2.005- §
Awe
82-44.416 Enforcement.
(b) An event ,sii4rlr be monitored by lain enforcement and code enforcement officials to determine
compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit.
(c) A temporary event permit may be revoked for any violation of any term or condition that occurs at an
event or for any other reason specified in Section 26-2.2022. A revocation may be appealed to the board
of supervisors within 15 days of the revocation.
(c) The County may enforce this division by any remedy allowed under this Ordinance Code,
or any other remedy allowed by law. (Ord. ?00�- § ?.}
10
Article 8.1-44,.6
Fees and Costs
82-44.602 Application Fee. A nonrefundable application fee for a temporary event permit shall be paid
when the application is submitted. An application for a temporary event permit is not complete until the
application fee is paid. (Ord. 2005- § 2.)
82-44.604 Cleanup. If County property has not been properly cleaned or restored after an event held on the
property, the permittee will be billed for the Count�J's actual cost of cleanup and restoration. (Ord. .2.005-
§ 2.)
ii ir
'P., 't 0 MV111 SI/�-.t�J. tic 00A
cill boo the c;
82-44.606 General.
(a) Permit application fees, appeal fees, and cleanup fees will be in amounts established by the board of
Supervisors in the community development department's fee schedule.
(b) Fees required under this chapter are in addition to any other fee required under any other
chapter of this code or any other county, state or federal law or regulation. (Ord. '2.005-
§ 2.)
SECTION III. Chapter 56-2.. of the County Ordinance Code is repealed M* its entirety.
SECTION TV, EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage, and within
15 days after passage shall be published once with the names of supervisors voting for or against it 'in the
Contra Costa Times, a newspaper published in this County.
PASSED on by the following vote:
AYES-
NOES:
ABSENT-
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST.- JOHN SWEETEN,
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Board Chair
and County Administrator
R;; rSEfILIL
Deputy
10
May 6, 2005
32
John Obome, .. _
Contra Costa.County Community Development .. _
651 Pine St.,, 41 Floor,North Wing
Martinez,, CA 945531
jobor@cd.cccounty.us
In Re: Temporary Events Ordinance and 500 Coventry Road (owner Danny Scher)
Dear Mr. Oborne:
The county has previously determined that the owner's use of the stage and amphitheater he
constructed on the above referenced property to hold musical concerts was not an accessory use to a
single family dwelling in an R-6 residential zone without a land use permit(which the owner never
applied for). The owner did apply for"legal nonconforming status" for the property which the county
denied as well as his appeal of the denial. During the ensuing years the county fined the property
owner on three separate occasions for holding musical concerts in violation of the county's R-6 zoning
ordinance. The owner's appeal of the fines was denied.
The Coventry Neighborhood Group (CNG) has concurred with and supported the county's position.
CNG has consistently maintained that outdoor amplified musical concerts featurinp,'Professional artist
and hmrin"g up to 3 50 peoplZ`ExcE a residential neighborhood. 000-�
The 2^d draft of the Temporary Events Ordinance (EO) proposed by Supervisor John Gioia, as currently
worded, would allow the property owner to hold the type of events that the county has determined to
be in violation of the county ordinance. CNG has been advised that the purpose of the proposed EO is
to put the county on a more solid legal ground (as opposed to amending the current ordinance to
correct any perceived weaknes e e county is not sure i wail should the property
owner challenge ent ordinance in a court of law.
CN is opposed to this proposed ordinance. It is the county's responsibility to maintain the chara r
R-6 residential neighborhoods and not implement an ordinance to benefit a single property owner o
the detriment of others regardless of outside pressures or political influence. Nevertheless, CNG s
compelled to comment on this proposed EO. The ordinance and CNG's comme ac ed.
Please note that s comments and rec ions are limited to permitted uses at events held
on residential property in residential districts, and do not include events that would require a permit
that are held on church properties or by civic groups (PTA)that would host over 50 people and be
open to the public.
Coventry Neighborhood Group
C/O J Folger-Brown
555 Coventry Rd
Kensington, CA 94707
CC: Dennis Barry, Director, Community Development Dept.
Catherine Kutsuris/CD/CCC To jobor@cd.cccounty.us
04/21/2005 12:25 PM cc
bcc
Subject Fw: Event Ord.-KMAC Mtg-
Forwarded by Catherine Kutsuris/CD/CCC on 04/2112005 12:25 PM
In case you haven't see this.
CK
"J Folger-Brown(Toni)"
<#o1gerbrown@corncast.net> To jfolgerbrown@comcast.net
04/20/2005 01:42 PM cc
Subject Event Ord.-KMAC Mtg-
A1114
Last nlcyt:)ht CNG members met to discuss the second draft of the proposed Event Ordinance
(attachment - one). Although this draft is longer, and assumedly more complete than.the first
nor better than the first draft.
draftit is ne*ther substantively different
CNG members concluded that like the recent proposed fundraising ordinance it is,uniquely
permissive. instead of restrictive. This places a greater burden upon nel(yhbors to prove
non-compliance. 1ne whole concept of"Temporaryvent is an oxymoon in this context in that
so, W
Scher has constructed a permanent venue for continuing events. Thus., it is an illegal land use
issue that requires application of a land use permit (a position consistently held by CCC), or an
amendment to the zoning code, but not a countywide ordinance.
Currently CNG members are drafting a response to this proposed draft that will be submitted to
KMAC at tomorrows 7 PM meeting, in the main meeting room of the Kensington Community
Center (Youth Hut). Because time is limited I have included Tim's contribution (attachment
two), which., although is likely be edited, reflects the opinions and criticisms that were reflected
at last nights meetino
I-"-*
I recommend that you attend the KMAC meeting, tomorrow. Thursday, and by way of
In,
preparation review both the proposed ordinance and Tim's comments. Additionally, it would be
1e-
.11n
helpful to KMAC if you submit a brief written statement that includes and summarizes tu
important points that you might chose to make during the meeting. If you are unable to attend
Z11-7
please take a few minutes to email your comments to:
Rav Barraza. KMAC Chair. ravbarraza�&rrisn.com. and copy Supervisor Gioia,
JGlol*a(a';!bos.co.contra-costa.ca.us. and Catherine Kutsuris, ckuts(q),cd.co.contra-costa.ca.us.
Berkeley residents should add Laura Byce, lara.bicerc'v.acvov.orc7-, (Supervisor Carson's Assistant)
Ben Johnson To jobor@cd.cccounty.us
<benjohnson@sbcglobal.net>
cc
05/0512005 03:07 PM bcc
Subject Crockett Community Center
I have in the past rented the large hall at the center for various groups and weddings. As a
Cro_ck�ett„i esident I feel we in Crockett need better control of the rentals of the hall.
The new security requirements are unnecessary for most events and should be controlled locally
Realtorsas needed. The West Contra Costa Association of has not had either security nor
in security problems since our existance the 1940s. When I applied to rent the hall for our annual
crab feed in?006 the requirements were unreasonable, I will probably not be renting the hall
until the unreasonable requirements are removed.
Ben Johnson
`�' Crockett Citizen and a member of the West Contra Costa Realtors Association
f
"Jeanette Larsen David To <WBUEHRING o@prodigy.net>, <gcovina a@ea rthlink.net>,
ti Eichom" <Iindue a@earthiink.net>, <jfoigerbrowna@comcast.net>,
r~� <larkhorn a@rnsn.corn> <timho er comcast.net> <ivoandkath n netzero.net>
Y C> rY C t
cc <JGioia@a bos.cccounty.us>,<jobora@cd.cccounty.us>
04/26/2005 10:33 PM
bcc
Subject Re: Event Ord.
John Gioia,
I am a member of the Coventry Neighborhood Group and was at the KMAC
' meeting the other ni h speak as others my opinions well.
'I cannot ort your proposed Tempoary Events Ordinance wri tten.
Many�,pa- are well devised and some may be particularly needful t other
pa of the county. My main objection is with the audience size for pr• ate
vents (Danny Sher' s concerts) 300-200 person events are and should be.-
rare
erare (temporary) events . But to allow 4 (and now Danny wants 5) in a Is eridl
fashion is not rare and not temporary. To me, you have compromised a
central concern of the neighbors surrounding 500 Coventry Rd. for the
benefit of 1 person. I don't like to say it, but it appears he wrot at
section I urge you to reconsider this part of the ordina change it to
1 (one) 100 person even months ested b others at the
g Y
h c a e emit: 300-200 x 4 is not. I will attend
the Board of Supervisors hearing to speak against when it is put on the
agenda. Sincerely, David M. Eichorn
From: "J Folger-Brown (Toni) " <j f_olgerbrown@comcast.net>
To: <WBUEHRING@prodigy..net>; -.gcovina@earthlink..net>;
<lindue@earthlink.net>; <larkhorn@msn.com>; <j f olgerbrown@ comcast.ne t>;
<timhoyer@comcast .net>; <ivoandkathryn@net zero.net>; <randbgiusti @ j uno. com;•;
<ted@bendatool.com>; <tedgroom@yahoo.com>; <kweil@comcast.net>;
<belmondos@aol.com>; <nagasawa@uclink4 .berkeley..edu>; ebearreilly@juno.com; ;
<aresner@ PACBell.net>; DrLSchwart zburd@ aol .com>; <mstoflon@earthlin kU.net ;
<sully722002@yahoo.com>; <j ackelwok@aol .com>; <walkers@ccnet.com>;
<Wegorn@ sbcgl oba 1 .net�; e-ku ku 1 an@ sbcgl nbal .net>
Sent: Tuesday, April '126, 2005 10:53 AM
Subject: Event Ord.
> A11,
> First, I apologize for not responding earlier but shortly after the KMAC
> meeting I succumbed to a virus that has kept me off line until this
morning.
> After reviewing all your comments I must say that I agree with all of
> them. Jack' s idea to mass mail Kensington residents is a good one.), and T
> have just made a few calls to determine how other Kensington organ.'Lat i orfs
> do this. So far I do not have an answer, but I 'm sure that this would be
> doable and I would be willing to help, etc.
> Additionally, when I get a promised copy of KMAC' s recommendation, I plan
> to contact the other MAC' s, with copies to the other supervisors, and
request that they support us by questioning the critical points . The
> _'Inctive permit application process, the number of = Tatlad
> oar ticipartts, and enforcement d the critical �y
points . Anyone, who wishes to express their independent concerns
}
regarding
> this ord. should submit the ��-t John Oborne, CCC Planin D�
g _
> j obor@ cd. cccount y.u�
> �rom several media people (newspapers) and am sending the
> below comments to them. As soon as I find out about the mailing process I
> will let you know how it works. Good idea Jack! -toni
> Clearly CNG has been, and is being, patronized by Gioia. We also know
that
> Perata, starting with SB952, has applied considerable pressure to see that
> Scher is able to continue to hold concerts . Apparently, in addition to
> Gioia's career aspirations, there is the implied threat that future
funding
> for CCC might be tinkered with. Either Perata is the monster that he is
> made out to be, someone who will sacrifice the masses for personal
> interest, or he is being used as an excuse to solve CCC' s current land use
> problem.
> There is no question that this Even ft ten will allow
Scher
> to continue to ho e commercial style concerts in the same way t he
> has been ho g them. The only difference is that what is now and has
> been co e dered an illegal land use would magically become a legal land
> use. This draft allows subjective standards to determine the permit
> PrwioceS.,s that places a disproportional burden on the community to appeal,
>; the number of outdoor events and the number of people (200-300 people and
!q
'k> events within 90 days) eViceed anything that is acceptable in a very urban
XI residential community, and the enforcement is essent' .xist ent
> Community stan ar s, currently nonexistent, are s111111 control or
� r
guide CCC in their determination as to what is appropriate when awarding a
permit. However, experience has shown me that standards are liberally
> applied, and only when there are numerous and continued complaints does
CCC
looks into the matter. Assuming that this ordinance, that would sacrifice
> Scher's neighbors, is being fast_ tracked because Perata has insisted, what
> chance will this neighborhood have should they appeal a permissive permit.
44
"J Folger-Brown(Toni)" To jobor@cd.cccounty.us
" <jfolgerbrown@comcast.net>
cc dbarr@cd.co.contra-costa.ca.us,
05!06/2005 12:59 PM cbait@bi.co.contra-costa.ca.us
bcc
Subject Proposed Event Ordinance for residential areas of
unincorporated CCC
This letter is followed by a summary of five changes that we have recommended that we believe
are critical to maintaining neighborhood standards in our residential community. The attachment
is a copy of the proposed ordinance that includes comments (in blue) and recommended changes
(in red Jtalic,s ).
May 6, 2.0005
Jahn Obome,
Contra Costa County Community Development
651 Pine St., 4'h Floor,North Wing
Martinez, CA 945�.)
jobor(d�,cd.cccounty.us
In Re: Temporary Events Ordinance and 500 Coventry Road (owner Danny Scher)
Dear Mr. Obome:
The county has previously determined that the owner's use of the stage and amphitheater he
constructed on the above referenced property to hold musical concerts was not an accessory use
to a single family dwelling in an R-6 residential zone without a land use permit (which the owner
never applied for). The owner did apply for Alegal nonconforming status for the property
which the county denied as well as his appeal of the denial. During the ensuing years the county
fined the property owner on three separate occasions for holding,musical concerts in violation of
the county--s R-6 zoning ordinance. The owner=s appeal of the fines was denied.
The Coventry Neighborhood Group (CNG) has concurred with and supported the county%—s
position. CNG has consistently maintained that outdoor amplified musical concerts featurina
professional artist and hosting up to 350 people exceed anything acceptable in a residential
neighborhood.
The '.?...' draft of the Temporary Events Ordinance (EO) proposed by Supervisor John Gioia. as
currently worded, would allow the property owner to hold the type of events that the county has
determined to be in violation of the county ordinance. CNG has been advised that the purpose of
the proposed EO is to put the county on a more solid legal ground (as opposed to amending the
current ordinance to correct any perceived weaknesses) because the county is not sure it could
prevail should the property owner challenge the current ordinance in a court of law.
CNG is opposed to this proposed ordinance. It is the county=s responsibility to maintain the
character of R-6 residential neighborhoods and not implement an ordinance to benefit a single
property owner to the detriment of others regardless of outside pressures or political influence.
Nevertheless, CNG feels compelled to comment on this proposed EO. The ordinance and CNG=s
comments are attached.
Please note that CNG's comments and recommendations are limited to permitted uses at events
held on residential property in residential districts, and do not include events that would require a
permit that are held on church properties or by civic groups (PTA) that would host over 50
people and be open to the public.
Coventry Neighborhood Group
C/O J Folger-Brown
555 Coventry Rd
Kensington, CA 94707
Hard copy to follow by US Mail.
Summary of critical recommendations:
1) That to maintain the concept of temporary event, each event should require a separate
.............
application and pen-nit inste imum of four events on one permit covering _ onth
period.
? ...........................................1111...........................
Reduce the number of temporary events to be held on residentia. properties in residential
districts, from four111 � month period.
Re u num en ees/participants from 200 3 00 to a total �" er
event, including event staff and entertainers. etc.
4) Disallow the use of sound amplification equipment on residential properties in residential
districts.
5) Require that CCC and law enforcement shall be responsible for monitoring and
enforcement and that the applicant must pay for additional enforcement and monitoring costs.
NOTE: The attachment is a copy of the proposed ordinance that includes comments (in blue) and
recommended changes (in red Italics
).
%..A A-
. ..� anny Scher
500 Coventry Road • Ken-sing-ton, CA 94707
(5 1 0) 526-651 1 • (510) 52o""-6522 fax
�� d army@dansun_com
Post-it"Fax Note 7671 Dateof
40% paCIDS
April 22, 2005 TO Fro
7 Ak
1 J�
Cot i 7 Co. .......0o- A0
/
Phono#
Supervisor John Gioia / I Phone
11780 San Pablo Avenue, Suite D Fax L 67 3Fax
El Cerrito, CA 94530
Dear John:
I
appreciate the considerable time and effort you have put into finding a fa i r way to
allow me the use of my home for occasional nonprofit and political fundraising
events. At our most recent meeting in your office, you gave me a large pile of
sample temporary event and sound ordinances that other communities have,
including those in Contra Costa County that you indicated might provide models for
a solution.
I was therefore quite surprised after reading the proposed Contra Costa County
Temporary Events ordinance that not one of the other ordinances you gave me had
anything remotely as punitive or restrictive as what is in your proposed ordinance.
Your ordinance states that it would be grounds for mandatory denial for a
Temporary Event permit for twenty-four months if an event goes over the closing
rVVR=th=1 nrNI-I it by any amount for any
time limit for over thirty minutes- oma-s "C7_"V__WL LI&**OW Ift;
period of time, ore he permitted number of persons.
Whil e.. can have control over the number OT" people attending a fundraising o`r��
itical fundraising event, one cannot have control over things such as traffic
conditions, etc. which could cause a delay in people getting here and therefore 1
:or
cause the fundraiser to run a bit late. Though I have reluctantly agreed to end all
�, fundraisers lesskhan
I y-rninu es after t e stopping this ie
that it is a reasonable-� 1 7 is making me
responsible for conditions over which I may not have control. Additionally, it Is
unreasonable to hold me responsible for unrelated sound from third parties.
To deny me fundraising use of my home for a Tull two years because of one minor
Ih
incident as mandated in the proposed ordinance, whether or not I caused it, without
any type of less severe,.graduated penalty is unfair, overly harsh, punitive, and
ultimately, abridges my constitutional rights of free speech and association- Driving
slightly (or grossly) over the speed limit, disturbing the peace, and even using
steroids in baseball .all have fighter penalties than what the County is proposing.
I baw
All of this could have been avoided had the Board of Supervisors simply changed
the zoning ordinance so that it would expressly allow fundraising activities
connected with noi 16"'profit or charitable organizations on residentia'I property, as you
had suggested- This was subsequently followed up by a sound ordinance
that
failed to pass.., now a second draft of a Temporary Events Ordinance, and meetings
5-10-2005 2:AOPM FROM DANSUN PRODUCTIONS 510 E26
Supervisor John Gioia April 22, 2000 Page 2
throughout the.County with respective MAC's. As KMAG pointed out at the meeting
with you to discuss the ordinance, this proposed countywide ordinance which is the
result of my fundraising events, is not really a countywide problem, adds regulation
where it isn't necessary, and administrative and costly burdens on local and
countywide agencies.
This proposed ordinance will cost the Kensington Community tens of thousands of
dollars to enforce with the hopes of ''catching" me in any minor 'Infraction., resulting
in a mandatory. sentence" of denial of future permits for the following two years.
This will inevitably prevent me from using my home the way others do in order to
mollify a few angry neighbors.
It was my hope-that the County would have enacted the ordinance originally
proposed and unanimously passed by the Board of Supervisors that simply
permitted fundraising and political fundraising events at one's house subject to the
same nuisance, noise, and other public health and safety regulations that currently
apply. Short of that, the proposed ordinance nance should be changed so that the
mandatory denial of a Temporary Permit for any period of time are reasonable, less
punitive, less capricious, and not based on a first offense of a mi-nor provision.
Regards,
0101
1�'
Danny Scher
Attachment
cc: Senator Don Perata
Senator Tom Tor(akson
"L W Stewart" To <jobor@cd.cccounty.us>
<11wstewa rt@ comcast.net>
cc <diane@rgrnassociates.corn>, <greenefmly(q comcast.net>
05/26/2005 10:30 AM "tim crane" <tvcra ne(@comcast.net>
bcc
Subject Temporary Events Ordinance
Dear Mr. Oborne:
Thank you for your time on my recent visit to your office regarding Contra Costa County's proposed
Temporary Events Ordinance. We would appreciate inclusion of the following comments in your
information packet to the County Planning Commission:
Itis the consensus of the Board of Directors of the Port Costa Conservation Society (PCCS) that this
proposed ordinance would be an unnecessary layer of red tape, a time-consuming requirement already
covered by existing County ordinances, and a costly staffing program for a County budget already
stretched thin.
The PCCS is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization staffed entirely by unpaid volunteers. Our fund-raisers are
for the purpose of restoring the 1911 Port Costa School building for community use. In all of our past
events we have enjoyed the full cooperation of the County regarding necessary permits.- Representatives
of the Health Dept. have photographed our food and beverage service booths as examples of excellence
in code compliance. In the matter of traffic control, Lt. Jurold DeVaull has been exceptionally helpful in
providing Sheriff's Deputies to maintain the free flow of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Regarding the sale
of alcoholic beverages, we are in complete compliance with ABC requirements. Regarding amplified
sound, we have never had a complaint from the community (the only event in which amplified sound would
be an issue is the Port Costa Talent Show, an event featuring some 20 individual 3-minute acts.
In brief, it is the PCCS opinion that we are already in compliance with County standards of public health
and safety. This new proposed ordinance appears to be unnecessary, misdirected due to the occasional
scofflaw, and an extra burden on volunteers who are performing valuable community service.
We would appreciate your conveying the above points to the County Planning Commission.
Thank you,
Lewis Stewart V040
(510) 787-2254
LWStewartCc�comcast.net
BSanf4444@aol.com To jobor@cd.cccounty.us
04121/2005 11:16 PM cc
bcc
Subject new events ordinance
Mr. Oborne,
P/-I
i am conm I I this proposed
As a past President of the Crockett Ch !IJ
event ordinanci�:��I e communi on volunteers and it's events to raise fun our
I o-I
t this
to raise fun
non S. This type .01L an ordinance would not allow these things to continue. We certal y
et permitst for our events but in the usual time frame and with the regular requirements.
%' believe that this is not a well written ordinance that will hurt many little unincorporated areas of
the county.
'�� piano at t. Port Costa's Talent show. Events
Our supervis ed the nel'ahborina communiQ��p� t:� C) community
such as this would be under the gun with your new ordinance.
I am a concerned citizen as well.
Thank- you,
Bobbie Sanford
SE Y A FOUNDATION
C1 JAM or n-T BOARD NTH ��
Lawrence B.Brilliant,NID?
MCUTIVE DIRECTOR
Anthony J.Kozlowski
BOARD OF DIRECTORS eoIIlmiSs1011Dennis Bawer,Sr. C011tra Costa P1 g
#9
Girija Elaine Brilliant,PhD,MPH Maureen Parkes
Lawrence B.Brilliant,NM,NTH
Cc,sai Dlaz 651 Pine St.
Paul Gaffett Martinez, CA 94553
wavy Orm
Jersr hones (92.05)) 335-1222
T.Stephcn Jones,MD.,MPH
Yverm Joseph-Fox
Mary LaMar July 52 2005
Lcimmd'7.ee-Largon
Michel Mamrer
Pew McGinn Dear Contra Costa Planning Commission,
Nip='Mehta
Stephen D.M1*l1crdvM is a Berkeley based non-profit, public health
Domiswamy Nagmaj an Seva Foundation .
Sandra Nathan organization- Seva.hag many vehicles for fund raising,including
Jahan=Romney
Sailharno Sarnang producing events. Events play a major role in our organizational
maura Santang6o,MD.FACS development. Over the 27 years Seva has been in existence,we
0 *a
lannu subulp NII ,ccrr,halso have raised several million dollars through events, as well as
ADVISORY BOARD �amased public awareness of our work.
Inhn Bennet[
Alita Bowen 1 0
Peter Buckicy I'rn writing in support of the County's Temporary Events Ordinance.
Mirnbai Bush
Teffanco Cariscm I feel iL is fair,reasonable and balances the needs of worthwhile non-
Gar`'Cohen residents where
0 It s and the neighborhood
Athena Desai profit charitable or
Dianc.G=cft events would be held.
Paul Haibic
michact Jeffery,cul
Neal L.KerWwGuycr Please support this ordinance. It will help many non-profit organizations
Glen Dune Lank3rd,IT.
David Levine q
continue our work and support the communities we serve,
Mafia Mangini)FN?,,CWM
SunandaM=k= Sincerely,
.41anMUffil's
P.Namperumalsmy,MS
G.N4tf%hiArF MQ
Pauline Pariser,.MD .000W
Marina Rifkin
HM Schmpflin Tamara I�.lamner
Martin Spcncer.MD,.FXUS
Bcvcrly Spring,MD Seva special events coordinator
R.D.Thulas I I
Mark Tibain iraj 510 486,,2887
Linda Velarde
Bob Weir
Wedd WillarcL PhD
Amies Williams
HONORARY LIFETIME
13UAkD
Ram Dass
Nicholc Grasset
Dr.Guilapalli K Rw
Dr,Vcnkntwwamy,MS.FACS
Scva R)-undation 1786 rifth S=ct BcrIccley,CA 9710 I Tial.510.8 $.7382!Fax 5 1 0.8A 5.7410 www.seva.orz
FR�7C��. :CVS FAX NO, :X50-3?5-1 43 Jul 06 ?a6S �4:'ASPM P1
s
amel�n eke� ' A A
6485 Conlon Ave.
EI Cerrito, CA 94530
www.gsj.org
July 6, ?005
Contra Costa Planning Commission
Attn. Maureen Parkes
651 Pine St.
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Commission Members:
I am writing on behalf of Gamelan Sekar Jaya, a Contra Costa County nonprofit
organization, to urge you to adopt the proposed amendment to the Zoning Code to
regulate temporary events that take place on private property. Over the past 25 years
Gamelan Sekar Jaya has earned a national and international reputation as a leader in
cross-cultural artistic exchange with Southeast Asia. We have received numerous grants,
awards and other recognition from organizations such as the National Endowment for the
Arts, the National Dance Project and the California Arts Council. Nonetheless, as a small
nonprofit organization, we depend heavily on support from the local community. The
ability to share our art with the community, and to receive their support in return,in
small, private venues as well as large concert halls, is vital to our survival. On behalf of
all of the members and supporters of our organization I urge you to act favorably on this
amendment.
Sincerely,
Jim Hogan
Chairman, Board of Directors
Jul-06-2��5 05:57pm FrommSLO LTD +415 31 8 7001 T-455 P.001/001 F-389
T1 CKETSW
FORaCHARITY-COM
July 6, 2005
Contra Costa Planning Commission
A : Maureen Parkes
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Ms. Parkes,
am on the Board of Directors of Tickets-for-Charity, LLC. We are an
organization that provides sports teams, concert promoters and consumers an
opportunity to redirect the financial benefit of secondary market sales of tickets to
their favorite charities.
It has been brought to my attention that a Temporary Events Ordinance is to be
presented to the Contra Costa Planning Commission. ( am very much in favor of
this ordinance because it will provide a fair and reasonable balance to the needs
of non-profit and charitable organizations such as Tickets-for-Charity, while
respecting the rights of our neighbors.
Thank you for kind consideration and I hope that I will be able to continue to work
on meaningful and important events with the residents of Contra Costa County.
Very truly yours,
Shelley Lazar
CC: Supervisor John Gioia
• Laura Duldner
5828 Lawton Avenue,
• Oakland,CA 94618
fcwsiTnAe tmmtTiiftcrd
To: Contra Costa Planning Commision Fax: (925)335-t 222
ATT: Maureen Parkes
From: Laura Duldner Date: 7/6/2005
Re: TEMPORARY EVENTS Pages: I
ORDINANCE
CC: Supervisor John Gioia,
Mr.Danny Scher
. . . . . . •
Umjent 0 For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑ Please Recycie
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing regarding the proposed Temporary
Events ordinance for Contra Costa County- As a concerned citi Len I
support the ordinance because it is reasonable and balanced. It is fair
to the neighbors while also allowing worthwhile non-profits to continue
their important work. in the community.
Thank fou,
Lau ul dner
(_5j 10) 658-557:x.
* 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
July 7, 2005
Contra Costa County Planning Commission
Attn: Maureen Parkes
b51 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553
To Contra Costa Counry Planning Commission:
1 am a neighbor and live a very short distance from Mr_ Danny Scher's house at
500 Coventry koadin Kewmgton, California.
t have never been bothered by any of the f=d.ra..ising events he bas hold at his home. He
has handl ed the P arkin, sound and all logistics in a responsible manner.
This Temporary Events Ordinanceis reasonable, as it will allow Mr. Scher to continue
his food works while recognizing the needs of some members of-the community who; in
my opinion, are consistently unreasonable and irrational.
Sincerely,
4L
Mts. Giselle Larkins
537 Coventry Road
Kensington, CA 94707
cc: Supervisor Jahn.Gioia
TOTAL P.03
July 6,2005
Con Coss Planninar Conamissian
Aun.Maureen Parkes
65I Pirie St.
Martinez., CA 94553
Dear Planning Commission:
].am writing to express my support for the County's Temporary Events Ordinance.
because itis fair,reasonable and balances she needs of worthwhile non-profit and
charitable organizations and the neighbors.
In this current budger climate, both locally and aauonally, we should be encouraging, not
discouraging, sur citizenry to assist in funding worthwhile projecTzand non-profit
institutions. To that end, we need more people willing to open their homes and work with
non profits to raise money and increase awareness of the many causes championed by
this sector. This ordinance is a step in the right direction.
Thank you for demonstrating your Leadership and support of the non-profit sector.
Sincerely.,
Connie Martinez
Executive Director
cc: Supervisor John Gioia
Danny Scher
180 WoZ way
Sen Jose, Ch 95114
(408)498-5437
FAX(408)498.6846
41M"MOW
•�vv.
VRA IRq
del
RUBICON PROGRAMS INCORPORATED
IA A N 0 N P R 0 F I T C 0 M M U N I T Y 0 R G A N I Z AT I 0 N
z
0
on�a Cosm.Planning Commussion
Ann Mauzeen Parkes
65I Pine St
Maiti.aez CA 94553
a
Dear Co
I am 4 inwriting support of the County's Temporary Events Ordinaarce.
As one of the Counties oldestlargestn-p
norofits we thin] itis c=ial tbx individual
supporters of Rubicon and other worthwhile non profit orn.
nizations be able to advance
the social good of the County by holding well regulated public gatherings to raise funds
to support our charitable goals. An essential way to =gage citizens incommuaiiy
service is to invite people to private cit"zen's dwellings to info them
of our activities,
to encoi3rage them to support our wor1c, and to make it possible fnr individuals to step in
whore �overament is not able to with private funds. These Iands Of events are necessary
a 4 10
if nonprofit charitable orrmnl ons are goinprofitg to be able to continue To serve-the public
good.
We have Tead the Temporary Events Ordinance and we think it strikes a fair and
reasonable balance between the interests we have as private CMV.4"in our homes to have
control over our envixonment, and a reasonable amount of well regulated activity at
reasonable gimmes which our neighbors should be able to engage in. Asa 10 year
homeowner in Contra Costa Cowary I thia2<the proposed regulations strikes a very fair
balance between the competing interests.
PlanningC ssions must always balance varying competing interests and I thi theornance as drafted strikes a compromise.
_Respectfully,
000� Y7
A Ic Autry
Executive Director
Employment services and businen enterprises a Affordable housing Comprehensive me=l health and support services
2500 Sismil Avenue Pichmond, CA 9404-1815 • TEL 510.235,15 16 FAX 5 104235,2025 TT 800,735,2929
Rub'Icon6FkubIconpgrns,or&. w%ww,rubI=npgms.0rg
roeriliff mac.com To mpark a@cd.cccounty.us,distl @bos.co.contra-costa.ca.us,
g C
K
danny@dansun.com
07/07/2005 10:15 PM
cc
bcc
Subject special events ordinance
As close neighbors of Danny Scher we support this fair and balanced
g
ordinance to allow fund raising events. Mr. Scher provides his home
without charge allowing the donations of guests to his events to go
entire! to the charity, This should be encouraged in a time of
Y Y
funding crisis in our schools and other social infrastructure.
Plus we enjoy oY hearing the music from our deck. Roger & Pauline I 1 i f f
�
S
t
July 6, 2005
Oj j
Contra Costa Planning Commission . .
Attn. Vlaureen Parkes
651 Pine St.
Martinez, CA
Dear Ms . Parkes
The proposed Temporary events ordinance seems to be fair
both to tne organizers of affairs such as charity fund-raisin
events on the one hand, and to the neighboring property owners.
I think that this ordinance should be approved by the
Board of Supervisors.
Sincerp,ly
All
Harry Thayer -
1.}.25 Coventry Rd.
Kensington, '-*A 94707
cc : Supervisor John Gioia
Danny Sc�ierr
..... �.�v� 1 1 -JJ/"1'I i �vi•i vrv.�ui v r nuuvv i 1 VI VJ :�i r� ��v D�GG r_ �
Jud _08 OS 11: 45a Lant wai ley Events 7079848085 p. i
c
Contra Costs Planning Comm
Attn. Maureen Parkes
651 Bine St
Martine7, CA 94553
Dear Commission Membem,
1 am writing you aonceming the Temporary Events Ordinance which you are
cuRerrtly oor,sidering regarding the ability for homecwners to utilize their homes
for fundraising purposes on behalf of non-profit organions.
1 am the Director of the Bill Graham Foundation, a supporting foundation to the
Jewish Community Federation of San Framism, Our foundabo' n relies on the
ability to conduct fundraisers at people's tomes, as this is one of the most
effective ways to tap into communities of oonoerned citizens on issues that
I
soetimes aren't able to gather much support from the press. t support your
efforts to enact the Temporary'Events Ordinance as a fair and eq e way to
bWm the needs of J ividuals supporting organizations such as mise with
those of nearby neighbors.
E sincerely hope that your ovversight and wisdom in fts matter will prevail,
Bob
Barsoth
Director
Bili graham Foundation
cc Supervisor John Gioia
Danny Scher
P . 4 . BO ?C 429094 SAN FRANCISCO , CA 94 142 - 9G9 �
� � L E P H 0 N E 4 1 5 5 4 10 8 0 0 FAX 41 5 2 4 3 9 0 34
Now
,,Now"W 4M%.10 40-0 "'Ma0mft
L0-CTIS n. ZUIRIE FOUNDATION
SUITE 5100, SSS CALIFORNIA STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 • (415) 392-2470 FAX (415) 421--8669
July 8, 2005
Contra Costa Planning Commission
Attention: Maureen Parkes
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553
Via Fax No,,: 925=335,-1222
Dear Ms. Parkes:
The Lurie Foundation is a family foundation that supports education, health and
the arts. The majority of our grants are of the matching variety that requires the
benefiting organization to raise a portion of the funds through their own means,
often by events at people's homes.
I am familiar with Danny Scher and the fundraising events that he has held and
encourage the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors to pass the proposed
Temporary Events Ordinance as it will afford organizations the opportunity to
raise funds used for worthwhile causes while respecting the needs of the
neighbors and community.
incerely,
e A. L e
President
Cc: Supervisor John Gioia (via fax)
Danny Scher (via fax)
i
Richard L. Pritchett
433 Rincon Lane
EI Sobrante, CA 94;t�4627 r"
510-223-4780
July 2 2005
Contra Costa Planning Commission
McBrien Administration Building Room 107
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553
Re:Zoning Ordinance Amendment County File #ZT05-0001
Dear Sir/Ms:
I do not approve of the above amendment
Reading of the proposed hearing on above amendment, in the West County Times, I
would like to respond in writing.
The way I read the amendment, it would appear to be primarily for the benefit of the
man in Kensington who wants to hold Rock Concerts at his residence and expanded
to cover the rest of the county.
First of all, passage of this zoning change would be legalizing the violation of the
rights of the other residents in the neighborhood for the benefit of one person, I doubt
it would hold up in court. It is bad legislation at best .
There are other, legal, venues where such concerts could be held without trashing
others rights. The argument that it is for a good cause doesn't hold water. I am for
benefits to help those who need it but this is not the way to do it.
Richard L. Pritchett
cc: personal file and possibly CCTimes-
Exhibit IV
Notice of PPublicngHeariwithin all editions
of the Contra Costa Times on
Saturday, July 30, 2005
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ON PLANNING MATTERS
NOTICE IS HERBY GIVEN that on Tuesday,August 9,2005,at 1:15 p.m. in the County Administration
Building,Room 107,651 Pine Street(corner of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez, California,the
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will conduct a public hearing to consider the adoption of an
amendment to the County Ordinance Code to regulate temporary events that occur on private property
and generate or invite considerable public participation. The proposed ordinance will apply to private
property in all zones within the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County. (COUNTY FILE#
ZT050001)
The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under Section 15305,
(e); Minor temporary use of land having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment, including
carnivals, sales of Christmas trees,etc.
If you challenge this matter in Court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else
raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the County
at, or prior to,the public hearing.
For further information please contact:
Attn: John Oborne
Community Development Department
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street,North Wing, 2nd Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
E-mail Address:Jobor(d),cd.cccounty.us
Phone No.: (925) 335-1207
Facsimile No.: (925)335-1222
Prior to the hearing, Community Development Department staff will be available on Tuesday,August 9,
2005, in Room 108, at 12:30 in the Administration Building, 651 Pine Street,Martinez, to meet with any
interested parties in order to(1)answer questions; (2)review the hearing procedures used by the Board;
(3) clarify the issues being considered by the Board; and(4)provide an opportunity to identify,resolve,or
narrow any differences which remain in dispute. If you wish to attend this meeting with staff,please call
Danielle Kelly, Community Development Department,at(925)335-1203 by 3:00 pm, on Monday,
August 8,2005 to confirm your participation.
Date: July 25,2005
John Sweeten,Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and
County Administrator
1
By.
Katherine Sinclair,Deputy Clerk
Exhibit V
Written Comments Submitted Subsequent to the
July 12, 2005 Planning Commission Staff Report
lL��, j�
Linda Lipscomb, retired attorney, real estate broker's license, member of KIC board. 103
103 Highland Blvd., Kensington, CA 94708 (510)295-8168 . Appearing only as an
interested citizen. KIC has taken a formal position re: Ordinance.
First Point: This is an example of abandoning good sense when an issue gets political.
In this case, Mr. Scher appears to have harnessed the political influence of his association
with Sen Perata's assistant resulting in pressuring the County into passing an Ordinance
which will PERMIT his commercial style concerts at his amphitheatre on quiet little
Coventry Road. Scher's concerts, by the Department's own determination, are currently
not allowed in an R-6 Zone. The effect of the Ordinance will in fact be to change the
zoning for the Scher parcels by changing the uses allowed there. This is a monetary
boon to Mr. Scher, and an 'Infringement on the neighbors as far as property values go. I
can tell you that if I were representing a buyer of one of the neighbor's properties,
would have to disclose the fact that these concerts are held on the property as a fact
which materially affects the value of the neighboring homes. Conversely, Mr. Scher can
advertise his property as having an amphitheatre which is allowed to be used for large
profit making gatherings. Let's take a look at the numbers with _300 people at a concert at
$200 per head. That's a cool $60,000 in one night at Coventry Grove. There is nothing
in the Ordinance which limits the concerts to charitable events.
Second Point: You have no control over what will happen to the Scher property in the
future. It is not hard to see Mr. Scher, or his heirs selling the property to someone else
who may want to conduct commercial style activities. What if that person's favorite style
of music is the Grateful Dead'. or Hip Hop, and a bunch of druggies attends, or just hangs
around the amphitheater? What if the property sells to someone who wants to conduct
gatherings, let's say, of White supremacists. You won't be able to discriminate on the
basis of content, under the First Amendment. You will have no control whatsoever.
I don't want that kind of thing near my house, and I dare say you don't want it next to
yours.
Third Point.- The law requires that in the case of a so-called temporary project, an
environmental review be performed under CEQA. One such case is City of Santee v.
County of San Diego (1989) 214 CalApp.3d 1438, citing Laurel Heights Improvement
Association v. Regents of University of California, 47 Cal.3d 376. It is nonsense to say
el
that well, since there are only three events per year, we don't consider that as having a
permanent effect on the environment. The law requires you to take the individual
activities which will occur under this Ordinance as part of the logical chain of
contemplated activities in order to assess whether there is an environmental impact. By
the way, the neighbors constitute part of the environment. You have not fulfilled your
CEQA requirements in my view, and this Ordinance should not go for-ward.
(Zec '07f,Z�S
As the Contra Costa County Planning Commission, you are now
considering a Temporary Events Ordinance which would allow Mr.
Scher to legally conduct concerts at his amphitheater, which up to the
present time, '� � � - F
� des. This ordinance
makeA1eal what wa IIlegal. Th
is is,, in mv opinion, a bad piece of
leg*slation.
The Kensington Municipal Advisory Council has received, at several
meetings, much Kensington community ginput about this
proposed ordinance, After very thoughtful consideration, KMAC has
communicated to the county's Community Development Department
its recommendations for revising the ordinance.
I am strongly opposed to the adoption of an ordinance which makes
legal
o therwise illegal events in the residential areas of our
community. However,, if you decide to proceed with the Temporary
Events Ordinance, I respectfully urge you to seriously consider and to
adopt all of the ordinance revision recommendations made to the
county by the Kensington Municipal Advisory Council es
necia
Y
the recommendation that, the ordinance limit, with a permit, the
and limit the maximum
numbercto*
Thank you.
7)
cc. rc
Comments by: J Folger-Brown, 5 5 5 ,jventry Road,Kensington,CA a member the Coventry Nei abborhood
Group).
1)Regarding the definition of temporary event(82-44.206-e Definitions). "Temporary event"means an event that
occursfor up to one day at a residence or in a residential zoning district, or up to three consecutive days at any other
location.
The unabridged version of the Oxford English Dictionarydefines temporary as: lasting for a limited time not
permanent,transient made to supply a passing need. However,thisP Pro osed ordinance as written would allow a
resident to hold three events for 200-300 people per year. Clearly this exceeds the concept of a passing
y� ►•+r-,,fir ._ a.[,..�o" ���+vGr��'�+llr�a•;+• ,. -�.-•-..,
i1}n!etil.'�•'ra"""•w ^,.rt_±e...`✓�"y' �ysc?-�'`�I?✓'r'S�k s'7'.7-;�jr,� �;`:.e�Y_•tiFR p q.�f�{`,ti �"�?..t•4�a+,•wqh'ar3."yyt'Xff�417`!'i3's`{ «yt•-.. _
r..-.•�..-...♦s.. i.rw r::`+•F. ,"ra;i=/-"}'y:_ - .!. 4;i. .. -1 _ _ .{ :fr .--. r�j. �ti:i- � _ .�W'ti.+rr-:•+t- wa:..a da�.•� ti'•,-:SKr.
r,- .+• -'r.:-t' .r.. .Y,'t:! .s. .•r*_ - G#�s_.. t it ;'a:..::k di.ts. - _'�: : ..!3•,t�:�i .�.,f.«r•S:•'•i.:rte- -tom .t._.
.. ..:.,=. ..•.:..._.... :x> ,,.,_ r.:....•.:..,-: _ -•3*i" ,. :. .: .old..'. _
,r
.t.. 4, . . .Y _ sp.:.?oT,:A-.. - �'r •o}.. L C_...,. TG.� Y S- t:S".i.-•."[•y{ya..n
•. [. .:{:J i �.z.l;• ?: .}'.« - -%.Y� .' it }.:•(`' r .^
L _
}s
+o�
-..events to
tL i.i l{•tf{.t, lLy�1"• ..1[tf:J••✓t.'ty1. S t t..•A_ R-.. .i
- 4 +t'i:t4r".a,rf-. •.t 4, �,.. .14E?�Ha+•.it-.i'--
j j+ .I:.fj t...j�13f aN _d1R��. 'u' - .,Y[ .:.r..sa•..-. •al1:IFl+tt i'!t t[_g t ,p R
Nt�' .31i� • "trrl•7l, •"illl`i'Fi S.!i:Yl+:f;l fl'f%?ir;F f � •f01'T-.
., a otos number of partici ants tofytP :..b�e_ dcl. ;.; f.
.•t ...t+.Mr!W1!.¢tlFr+'.c I tt ? Y...,..c♦, r r .:S
g !!'i»"i'-'': ;'. t^ne•:+rsT.'�•'11' .slut •�rrq'y ftAV. ?.i.•;! _ •t..'v. r T _
'i'lM�•.f'.]-' ',T.:J�� �5_ ��t'"' �/ s, •.4, .iYJ r • r...
t i•T-•Q ?:lir f'#i l� � .t.
• Fti lam:-'[,•iE?i,.i. 'i i:.i.' } ;'L. 5_.["r•.C•. 4S"'S_ i 7 i ":s t} I.j', i•rr i.: il.•_ r i i t
.Y.i Ar{;��. f . y F j r ia. ' - t rt+ _♦t _ v 5 _
FjTi•.,#,�r%}T= �k:Y.F'rrr lq til f.Y t.,,rti+ w f,`E3 ...! .....•__4ry"♦.r..it:a•.5:. ,A1
2) `sRe •s:aes. (Submittedg po question)Commercial s le concerts are inappropriate to
�
residential neighborhoods.
Staff Response:agrees that commercial style concerts are generally not compatible with residential use,but suggests
that the noise standards provided and the ZAsjudgement when reviewin thepublic comments will determine what
g
is appropriate.
Clearly there is a need for more definition regarding the legalityof the concept of commercial style as it relates
to residential neighborhoods. To rely upon the judgement of the ZA and the noise standards which must be
monitored to be considered,as controls is too su b'1 ective.
3). 82-44.416 Enforcement,(a)An event mav be monitored by law enforcement and code enforcement officials to
t�
determine compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit. Because the majority of events will be held in the
evening,on weekends and holidays, it is important that nei bors areprotected from violations that interfere neighbors with
their quality of life. The term may suggests that enforcement and monitoringmay not be available. Thisplaces an
Y
impossible burden upon neighbors toprove that the terms and conditions of thepern it have been violated.
• How will 200-300 participants be counted?
• How will the noise be monitored? The.problem is that the noise standards are broken down into four decibel
level categories that are time based. For example between 9 AM and 8 PM: 30 nein. per hr. at 60 dBA 1P 5 min.
per hr.at 65 dBA, 5 min• per hr.at 70 dBA,and 1 min,per hr.at 75 dBA. To appropriately monitor noise using
ng
this scale one would have to install equipment that would give an incremental reading for an extended
period of
time,or be lucky enough to have aortable monitor register a level that is in excess of the allows
P g ole level. Nasse
is one of the biggest concerns for the residents of Kensington who live adjacent to the 250 se t� a amphitheater that
has been built for the specific purpose of holding commercial style concerts. The use of wn lifed sounds
enhances the entertainer's performance and the 200 to 300 person audience reactions in a wa that• y spreads the
noise more clearly to the surrounding properties regardless of the decibel level. f recommend that amplified
g p ed
sound not be allowed for outdoor events in residential neighborhoods,and thatparticipants be limited tog � a
total of 125 people for each event.
4). In truth the reason that we are here tonight discussing this proposed ordinance is based upon the desire of a
Kensington resident to hold commercials le concerts in his outdoor amphitheater. This issue has ttY pbeen aproblem.
for five years and for all of this time Contra.Costa Countyand the concert givers.neighbors have consider these
concerts to be a land use violation that requires a land usermit. This ordinance that would allow 200-300 Pe concert
participants and amplified sound, would make what has been considered an illegal land use legal. I believe that an
ordinance that clarifies and standardizes rules for outdoor residential events would make enforcement '
easier,but this
ordinance that would IpZpLlize aproblem that hasplagued a Kensin cin nei boyhood fours�isa .f.t 4■^_ _ �Or
.r . - •" '.a c
e.
�!
J .� r .. , [1 .4'4 ..af3.. _Y.'_.- q... - - - ,• .. .f' :' art
s'
i
#t+� meted _
._. -. salad_.;
{
r. rss -
_ t.. 'vii.7.4c•tais:i.: _. .- -r,. .•":.:` "?►"-'_ -����.:'.:4:• � .J'#:.:
,t. r_ gtr .. _: - _ t. .- .,.. ..''_' '•iAl:i:til*•. gip.:
th ro os tie ' Il l'ord�nan _ r
1
7 Z �►
1
C,P. ec.,
To: Contra Costa County PI Commgission
Date: July 12, 2005
Ref: Public Comment Perto
^Cining to Public Meeting Agenda I
t m#5, Amendment to the Count
Y
Ordinance Code that Adds pt824 TemporaryEvents, (County ZTO1).File#
From: William R. Buehring, One Marchant Court Kensington, CA.
The proposed ordince results from a specific situation occurring in a Kensington residential
al
neighborhood where public musical concerts have been held ats
cant impact to the
neighborhood residents and in non-conformance to Contra
Costa County requirements.
uirements.
q
Considering the special cause that led to this proposal, it would seem that the recommendations
regarding safety and communityimPact from the Kensington Municipal Advlsory and the
Kensington Fire Protection District would begiven eater consideration .b the Coriu�usslon than
�' Y
is demonstrated by proposed the ordinance.
r h:ya t7'-Y.-',{'n['f t Yi.+S'1•t i! j w 7 r tThe
J ; _ ii AdvisoryCouncil; ? ,. has-'t + 4onetid, .t Ltie nuM.ber afa
.a J yr :r' ♦I f•l- S 1 ( .1.i .ta.1ftl'.. ! ,it;,.-1-,»'1iy?atid.t
artii aht t a nt r
s = d mer s� scant consideration and
:�:. ... _ _.;L.r g a open-forum discussion
their June, 13, 2005 letter recommended a limit of 125participants. Thisis more appropriate to
the Kensington
resident
ial F}environment
nvironmentS.ste.•:and
_{.f3 is s..ti. yR}3•.i'.i1 4}cZ `aLO{',.`7n+rftt Jt4•.lv
.•,.'.less
.g4than
w 1.the
300
(single
.
.y.
.i,.•e
1+
viw.'•:.
tTef:-
nt
N;` • vcou
_ t_ , -r::tomgRa''a: e 'e'
7
n
allowed in theproposed ordinanceficeahe eatasproposed does not solve the Issue4zr~ozar ia� a Yordacc 11Odfga crowds a
in Kensington.
The Kensington Fire Protection District in a May27 2005 letter st t its stated concerns about large
congregations of people and the associated risk of overwhelming safety resources. They also
stated that theymust be notified when a temporaryevent a lication is filed anti'that pp all their
listed concern must be satisfied. (Note: This need to be included in the application 0IroCeSS Was
also stated by the Blackhawk Police AdvisoryCommittee in their May1� 2005 letter.)
Theproposed ordinance does not make it obligatory, but rather relies on the Zonin g
Administrator's judgement and choice regarding contact with the various public works,s, fire and
law enforcement officials. given the relatively short application process time and the l
nortance
of appropriate planning for safety and neighborhood impact, it seems appropriate ate that the
Kensington Fire Protection District request be included in the proposed ordinance,nance and that it
apply to all related safe and lave agencies charged with the responsibility oftheP ty g g P tens ora event
� temporary
zone.
+rr Y; '§4 e� c.rr• s ' :,t tYa•,rTd j,'S�,,'tr 7 J..A(4.17Flii;J JG r.+it"!!'7!.;r, .' - L-. .!
In sunup I ask that the Commission r c- i` �. : ,5:•.'y, _ e its d+ r� h�e aoe:_r�eGonrnen {tlons and.are. uestrs::ode
...f•--.•"•-:'•.r'F.`.=.:"r.-• -_.•`'3;.:- _ ,.. _'1,.t,i. :;;: ,ri�.`•-..a;y?Ae!:;f'''- _,. 1,;: - - - -
s-•-
�i -
-7`J
b
C
r
h.
• ens
n=,�f unit
c a vso c :
y une
K-ensiri: d - ePrCteon. :zstri�t.ante
r'I._„ti j.•Af,'_ 'TjL•"f�!�Y drr -y -J
e�r��n lusio�ri f t.
T osed r -C
:p :p
Respectively, William R. Buehring
Kathy � �,.. .
and John Stein ���' ��� '��� ��.� r;, t.
CU
32 Beverly Rd.
Kensington,CA 94707 -
(510)524-5393
John Gioia
Supervisor, 1''Disrict
11780 San Pablo Ave., Ste D
El Cerrito, CA 94530
RE: Temporary 'vents Ordinance
Dear John',
We read in the El Cerrito Journal that the Planning Commission recently voted(in a split
decision: 4 to 3)to approve an ordinance that will allow Danny Sher to hold one 300-
person event and two 200-person events each year. We feel strongly about this matter,
and wish to share with you that we find this an inappropriate use of residential property in
a residential neighborhood.
In lieu of the ordinance approved by the Planning Commission, we urge you to
incorporate the KMAC recommendations of a maxiumum two events at 12-5 persons per
event. Even this we consider very generous to Mr. Sher -- and indefensible in a
residential zone.
Respectfully,
Kathy Stein John Stein
._..._.� L
Andrew Reed . _-
728 Coventry Road
Kensington `914Z Q7 Af 8: 2
Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors
C/o John Oborne
Community Development Department
651 Pine Street, North Wing, 2nd Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
County File# ZT050001
Honorable Supervisors:
strongly urge you to abandon or significantly revise the proposed county
events ordinance because it subverts widely accepted land use regulations and
allows huge impacts upon residents of R-6 zones.
The proposal turns land use law upon its head by allowing commercial activities
in residential neighborhoods. County planning staff is on record stating that the
commercial events produced over the last few years at Mr. Scher's
amphitheatre in Kensington are not allowed in an R-6 zone and violate current
land use statutes. That being the case, why would the county wish to degrade
the function of R-6 status?
Prior to Mr. Scher, people in Kensington have had parties, weddings, and special
events in their homes and yards without special regulation. Such gatherings are
self-limiting by the very nature of the modestly sized houses and lots in our
area. Also, the typical family might have one such private event a year, if that.
Now we have Mr. Scher, a retired professional concert promoter, who has
managed to create an ADA compliant, professionally wired amphitheater in the
middle of a residential neighborhood. He is exerting pressure to have an
ordinance made for him that would allow huge public events at his site several
times a year. This concert promoter has an alternative for large public events:
he can use an appropriate venue in a commercial district. Surrounding neighbors
have no alternative: they would have to endure a summer program of large
public events, year after year.
Mr. Scher should be allowed the reasonable use of his property — the same as
that enjoyed by the vast majority of his R-6 neighbors with modest sized homes
and lots. That is, infrequent private events with minor or imperceptible impacts
upon surrounding neighbors.
Prior to Mr. Scher there was no significant event problem in the county requiring
new law. Please do not allow this single purpose legislation to degrade perfectly
good existing land use laws and harm the established rights of residential
landowners. At the July 12, 2005 Planning Commission hearing on this matter
Commissioner Clark summed it up quite well: he found the ordinance permissive
and stated that he would prefer an ordinance focused on the needs of
Kensington.
Based upon research being conducted by Kensington community members and
their counsel it is my belief that the current proposal would be successfully
challenged in court. I urge you to avoid this situation by either rejecting the
proposed ordinance or reducing the number of events and people allowed at
said events to the standards recommended by the Kensington Municipal
Advisory Council.
realize that the proposed ordinance has been branded as a countywide device.
However, you can, at your discretion, produce an ordinance that would allow a
separate standard for R-6 while allowing more permissive standards for other
areas of the county.
Thank you for your consideration.
-100
Andrew Reed
2
{
Derwood W. Groom 0 5 A U G'a AM EI: 2
464 Coventry Road
Kensington, CA 94707 : .
August 12005
Board of Supervisors
Re:Temporary Event Ordinance,
As an immediate neighbor to the property in Kensington,which prompted the above ordinance,we think it
is unnecessary,unenforceable and bad law.However,if we must have this ordinance,we would like to
have the following changes made.
1 Add the planning commission's'recommendations
- Any fines levied and not paid shall be cause for denial of permit.
- Revisit the ordinance after one year.
2 Add a section which would be exclusive to Kensingtons unique situation using the KMAC guide lines.
3 The events shall be for Non-Profit organizations only,.no commercial,for-profit events.
4 A panel of three persons shall review any event request rather than one person(the Zoning
Administrator).
We sincerely hope you will give these suggestions serious thought before you pass this ordinance.
Best Regards,
Derwoo&d Joan Groom
i
FROM :JONATHAN R. WOLTER FAX NO. :510 527-1853 Aug. 03 2005 04:24PM P1
f�l.l�L1.ST .'.., 2�J
CGSfI. 1,06Contr0- C( 6�ti�1'/�;��'
C16. TOVIn OL3YoL
L
Comrvu_/n,T/ vcvelop(v� +�tlP14, �"kc�5i ��ne� u�r�ePt
1141Ak I l , �A-
V
�la��
ti1CY{i'na_y, CPQ . rI�15a3
COu (
I tl
i Gm ����t� rc� ��,� fit-
�"Aomo
YO dopt pvway-d��n�rorc�r� E.�enr��rd�n�nr� .
0
SSI iz, z�", T nttended k;oKL meefrn 4P�Illl�c Ccr�tra,.
N ('Gm/y���: G;�C-03Tzl CO(,tO-r "Ploon)
cI o%d or�linonr-L b ci(.1( L41�5 Y, -h
Lill.II In�-3 v�r�. �p�rax�rnc-re.i�
6L.
-j-
, resrq.�nts ci-rter�+ed
V)! 1)6t �+ne� O4f-)�5 t -J '4�
.t.
OfdlbrlOnCE, Igo or�L in f�vo� oF
�roKe
fts cifmn 4tj e)LI1n cI'II"' '"Imk�L c �lo;�n�
oifi cry cF
TVi� J0�'nC11 "', 1-hi_; ,�+�CI�;�C1n« r�Cu � c,�� UJvi 1�l� lz� aCCav�moClCrtL
-4- Ls L Inarvrclc.i�.� wno t�5
vetiied c�nc.�y`t- pfon�Sa-r�� for
01., tc Iconh�u2, l��C�v�� Conc��
(Ind, �van1� %111110
L�)e�e�c�l -Foil2po5C3peel c (g�r)er<<1 public) at L Y
arnphithUter in �e, bnc.I-Y ofd cF his hoy).c W) I Y&srd -k/.2 I Knn�r�tc�
nC�' -�w't���i�, Cornrn� �s�����' CC�rrn� Qdd�s � rtntedarv�hbo✓h0o� .Lrneet�� L -fee'I �4'hi.le'. cr0F � �t�<c�l pr�;c���4�ei'n9 I eLl �e�sor�Clllydont like.�� taste. in mY r��rW� ,She e(rron to rcf % 1)o n�eilxr(tC�.,
p�p✓entf y �n�o�� Q �y�Onal 110/'D Q.� !{�1�
pof�t�CQI �r��! ye, . `
Ctin6r cornmi� :;,0ney; otc.d conc��✓�� c�}�e c�
UJV1iCy1 V(l_1Qcj KQy1,�1, 'fZ�'1K�S31 '0 err3 0J ocv.) -nf 6 r11op_Corn rn wj101*00) C'hwl" r �tehlmon(5 *ot- peeple. �.:..) a,
FROM :JONATHAN R. WOLTER FAX N0. :510 527-1853 Aug. 03 2005 04:24PM P2
h<<l���j��'C�'hb�, „ He �u�,rrt on tri
pv� h�� CG;�Cern f�lzi.it ���; _ j�rOro.�d numi��l cF C vei�ri ��;�1 reFrrred
fiv lI'ti'9[��ha� vi h11r� VJ06V910KOCI in�"aq����Y i.�`jOJncrt �re.�k
� adapt a. srr>�riny or�'�;��nce.. 6ry)rv��::�ianel Ffyn�in Ulonq
ob)ecfied 0001m � Ord� iivn r_� I�cc�u��. ::� I I--L) n I lovi
(Y)mcYClal -5�1e. concc���� � becaus��2.y ''Q.✓E �1Gy" n(�/�V/���Y�'C�-��.
in Q, rezl,dentro-1 :1LOnLd,,
L COMYYyf P(Ory)pfe.0 Kensl -fMJrn (Le
f(01"*tnotho'....r* '��� C1rnunit�e.55C�rfZii�
G( IovJ
dl�oc.L. uen_�s -la riakt. (e(lri I I I I'vL-e,- tg���:��nC�t CLv�c�rts,
L by CIOL z�-� Dx),:�n c�eny���.► -pubi�'c nud�'enc�., give
-rh��2 -hm�.s Pervewafff-raLS1,ncjle� res�0entioliy-zoneOcatI Ln-
�i ht c I'tl'e s ���y� co�fia crer� at r incl crn and ��,x ✓�s,�xn!tEd ,
OF those QS,lu , fGLCie" �AjOUIC� nCfi ���n'�irt �uc� event�5 fo �t�1c. followi�
• �.I
VL C'1t��Cllni'Y1C�fi i5 C�.
CO/'1✓Y)�'C.IQ I C��P CrrlCl nor ��✓m(1t�d
)'o re3l,dtarlso( clyCasl
• 'R�CIVCI(�SS !-f
fu/1C1rQ15�� GS J�E.�(-�✓jam..,
fur�.s for �eryce, as I and, C15 such)
6 o0tap,purn it tfr- Lf rem
IDKo Kot-en c� evCnt6- ptr
.
P.Qr� yearoFt�r yn_�i� IJ ConLi�'�l('L...,� vjhl
, �i � �i
Ct�eQ -
kv� EVA"lfiia �t�NCCy� a��. gcr�ero ! 0 1 1s n✓ited C(tFineS a o
evert p,5 o Ccrn(rtrc) Ll �-i-5 nor wirl-fl-ed 0--l' �esldenti'C11
- -r �n r. �cv�e� vx�.s ��tcrred gnat w02. 10
(n w{rich he NoIC1� his �onc�'�s is �D� co(npi(ont undc*--w
*,)or �cs�. are C�cn�� i - �>c.��I� c cL/cnt,5 - h� Corp( i'Cinc.�
1,-.3 notrequ��� fog- 0'. prIV cctc. aait�,/ held atont's kant--*)
• l�mpi�fed srnand is Y�ot fx,;�;i1-e%J 6r� vGSlCI�t�C I ��ro�z�-�-y�,
cio(I&S fo),e 40p-._ 0th-9 iYVG C+ti'2..; �4�t VC.S�X%Y1df� rye uilEi�1' C�'1
ifs
nelo)rj ttovjctleIr) l600�S cy��vc5sed
���z tJvos��e.cr cf ,S�meLn�.
vio, (d �uC1-, �vrr7r5 Ire •�4-��i
v�..si c�en-h`al NrreL1.5, One, tv)0 to ale. ' I�QV
anY ah 6ns I ike. (a.-r,
FROM :JONATHAN R. WOLTER FAX NO. :510 527-1e53 Rug. 03 2005 04:25PM P3
!� (y)(3 L. C� (�tCl (�1 1 elS(I:(1(YY:. � C?f �-W�� V�.S(�)1�`�J I � Ct'�(1��1(�
An�1, �-4�c. ConclUID n/� rlrovjn fYorn 4'�ni-'�) fovmod I'G�-�
propa5eJ Ord nOnrL Ln0-� rir�,�D✓1�� v. rl�f��� i���. .
�, L w�1.�ld i '�C. ��> Cid%��c�� w L C1 01
3adi.
I-CAOccs QohL uk/ 12., tY)Ito �,,CfV-) �.wyfr ��t hod t2o, le....M4s in oup-):xr
of 0ICtf(�-r�,,5 noa V) 'PlOnniq+� O(CI(nonc. 7
Co�nmio .1�fn Ole. ungtxCef! 3 , 1 hfol
110t- rnrict.� 40,L rn¢cmig- vPY)
rev, LuJ , 4unUL w;yL, I'n(10C1�, aiI -F��/e-" 6.(40-L .3vo('non( -Tcn o(*e_rn ay(.)csej �(�:�! Cind o(t-A/IL--,, e1gk,fi
t-
r ,o�
w��� frim orc�nrzahons �, E , C,h C; v� IOCC.�ed in
but wh�cN hive. l�nL�t�ec� cr rnC�yi�oPe��r)l�v�it�'ran�,, �Ar.,Scl��s
coricer�s. Unl� 0 1 r3 C-rv��y�, sentK�����e5�'dent� . i'n q
n-4
tvi Cf ts-h rdI4
cF6�,�olt ,:S 400'tthe.�ro���lW
to.
%-. d��ckI(i ('G
Conv�r,)e.l Lk/14L ive-.000 op��s�ficx� C' ivvc/i G,-( I Lsen-r b
Ker��rY�t� re.'5 (5en-�5. GnL
"A n try
ofLflay!y narewo�thyMn� z - % 5
�etrC,'�;ent-t qv, Crc!ntbYthe. Ker�rnc�m Fire���tcc:hcr)
1`��si'��'C chCiteCl ''cnCoC
<<l:- t InvgL con rng�-hovZ, cF
p_oPC
Gnd thC�- CIS.SOG'Clf�(� ViSK Gf OV�U.J^e�m:n� �Crfe.� ��r��rrE,�,
41
fto�u can esuctn concerns be, 1, oo(e-
_J 9(ver) , :5j,- )n3 narroLkjq��ktvi13ty r00cj�-s C0C.] bc>>'I+- c ev)
In closi'n9, 4P1L corY)(v�et'Ci6I -(5 1 C ca�ccrt�,
CPI
" 44()
ly
orclir�anc� �e.�s tri m��e. legal , clue. not OpprOpriote. fn .r)sl'
O)tn2�c�hbrnl�C�'as. . t�(e'51'du I'al
�S�nceve��/,
�-yhn �,� . �Uo I i7r
Ke�.sfrx�-rcr�, Ca q��og
Ave,,
FROM :JONATHAN R. WOLTER FAX NO. :510 527-1853 Aug. 03 2005 04:25PM P4
��2�(05'
�ummr��� of ;C.���,�r�� E��;:;�'� c. ih�._, vew,rx�v�'�i��.
ltiCElnL.t
. i
r.'s Q n �. �r�cnr;
nOn-pedr-mit.tP-d U:�.
�tl ?r���.:;
�,.!r�re ,
;4)u gte.s FrOv� 4i1:;
�r_�✓cc��� C L _ " dear noise,o✓d r�n�c`�
i5 Drdi/1Qnl'�..
fit✓ .c C� l l,s u. not�- (1.o �1ui"�SQ/1C'�
ltol
5o fees ef-F
Almo.;�
cin y'����,) cio�-sr> + , 1-r��� r�o���� ar�l�nanre�
VAi cn k/cyu. �;;r
co�cc�ts e,,,vel, plunnev;sJ,)orstn)�.i l' �'r W1Qt yhtny)�Lr�,''
aim
�5o
r (/7
n. l�z f ci 'e,5�
t�'rkets
fog" events rv�nl�e.5 �.venr Commerc��� u>e,- no�pE%vvi�l�rd .
• �,•v2 e�terfia�nrner�t �� rel �;�u�e�l 'n cl�nm�YCiC�I
only
I'strI'�fis
Comme✓G ?J j;e, FJL V i routnLlv/ G10p�y;�Y�s
fonCs f6, .3y vi'r,�L_
• �rNp Y.-.) perfoimCrnces 0 1 iouY.-d oni OC)
j�Ub�G Gi C.�r��rv�2rLi�i.l �vCp�'fi,�. tiU1' �''Vn`�-r!'C�
�fi d � I on rn»d�yifi ge.. )g I yl
EI Cc✓✓ltz) no me.vrh' :� ii✓e, er�-f�`'�i�i�;r�c�1� �'n�w?c��
YDS i�l c.r�t i Cil 2Gn�
�n��
• AnyonL WO(rM' 0 �OV,(5UC_h 0-0 eller)
res��.nr�n � prc��r� lie
veqoul?) obtai'n
:� ,11-0
1)64r, 0.0r_ll-) vUal1l(j oe. rev+6wed
or) a cns�- �>y-ca�� l���s� �ic�nn�� �,��;��ir1 evn�uc�-re�
oUmbercf ov�fC[,i
evert,
ml�crl�en����,
ac�
r�o��. , r�er�erc�l
polie�,f'�i�
and nci�b��4�,, tr�FF1� ,
no,(.,s
1::�cy n.lJcr�t with 20o. -6c0 YDe.q.)l,, , QC�mInist�� v
�.iSL �2�n�� r requi'i�.d . YF
cy�ae!1I eC� , 'r��:� crr���d i» �` �cr)�j�r) jra:2ss.
Quofie. fvzry, iUv". CarrnnJ " y.ococ In�q�vvc ne..ve�
FROM :JONATHAN R. WOLTER FAX NOe :510 527-1853 Aug. 03 2005 04:26PM P5
��QY'1�C��Q. i�f� ��IVC ��rCV �(l!r ) � 1_r1T C, 0,0.
C-1
='E:�� Cc, � ��»rrr�^.I
>t��l
� < <se. , u.,�,rc'n �_: ; � T %�i lo,n�e�)
„�ivC. �r1r'.✓t?9�n�r�r1T rvrr)a
yC�?P(� ���/�,� !�/�� '`:!'(1 I�i" i11U�t (JZ- ' Li.%1
GyCi.�.,
f.JO C1fY�1�I1'FI� tSC'?I/'�!I C�II01J.)1Q C,JCII �%) L�OY�(YIP�('IC(�
C�✓CCl`� , '!.��; G`,•)!Trf�•, i1i',` �I I ��1�'JG:.� !')
4'c`Jf�°rli'i �l
�. ". iiS'�(; -,,.^.C. D(d.II1Q/1CL P(O�'ll�d�t.$`-��/1�
yr�LLSICI_tl
b�n�
n CIT
�e�k�,ley10 Cancyls/ lIvc."e enmvt-a�nm�� w�th �,�(�rngt�c�� crud
i�t/ifiin 0'... C.Or�rlf�vc I dactV
on
GnCI , Ct� s��C i�, �,; r1G�' (�"„��
44A
//n.
..
• pin �thcf �.;_.nrs r�ee.c� �d V�r�v� im�Ce.t)fiible-. xlct:S
0
� n�-i'C�hIDO/hJ'J� .
folop a/l0-()t I,Ellr 0P) . ..:Sii% Cf 'vC- 1�J
�22.Q.�P�1Q�J��J"�C'.SS Ov/�llrl��'1C�_ �n,il�CGi C�C1C.�F'C,S�C � ISSC(GS
Q f `(Y)L Cl
-I mo ItV
Co -C events.
would (oG�c r_�t corl��r�er��,� i use eF �esicic� r�"c,.l r�r��:�f
• C,C/t,�ld fQl baC�Gf� v�side�fiicil
cVlcu'!'icfil pro.cCril�
i n c�t�� c�c�r�.�'
Note.�� '�v��s �nf�rr�crrr:n w�S o��ne400"', rl�ng
l"X�A�P�.
of��t2GittC�S
Goes. Ai l
L I
JUL 26200r,,
John Gaccione
12 Eldridge Court
Kensington,CA j
Supervisor John Gioia
11780 San Pablo Avenue, Ste D
El Cerrito, CA 94530
Dear Supervisor Gioia:
A neighbor on Coventry Road hosts large events in his back-yard garden. Prior to any
large event, fleets of trucks and service vans deliver supplies several days before and
after the event. A large event may start in the afternoon with 250 people eating and
drinking then listening to live music into the evening. A large event may have a powerful
sound system and intense theatrical lighting. A large event can overwhelm the hillside
roads resulting in a wave of parking and traffic problems.
At some point our neighbor's backyard garden transformed into a largeM'red venue
called"Coventry Grove", and despite what the host may claim not all the neighbors
support what he has done. Some also question the methods he used as well. Does anyone
really take seriously his claim to not know that an elaborate stage lighting system was
going to be installed in his backyard garden?
After seeing a few large events I would strongly suggest that size and frequency of the
events be limited. The reasonable recommendations made by KMAC should be followed.
Set the number of events to only 1 or 2 annually, and limit them to 125 people. As I am
sure you have heard before,the issue is the overblown scale and frequency of the events.
Sincerely
ohn Gaccione
ij
Mr. and Mrs.' Suessmeier �x ,.��, s
jil
111 ��} r+.4€i (•t i
Eldridge Court
Kensington, CA 94707 j
r MNC�«.MW awaaMri.i.:a.w rr.......-+.n.:«•..- . ••......_ ..... �.
i
r �.-«_.-» ....f!f!Y^CC:i:•y..N.Ar..w.w.•ar,..yy.-...•.,mr....,wr.J••,�. •� ... .. ..r-.1
Supervisor John Gioia
11.780 San Pablo Avenue, Ste D
E1 Cerrito, CA 94530
,a
T �
Dear Supervisor Gioia.
We are Kensington residents for over 20 years and are opposed to large events held
in.thisqu' iet nei hhorhood. We are in strop a reement that the neighborhood. � � recommendations of
KMAC should be followed and that ifwe must permit events,,that there should only be
1-2 events of this bind pennitted annually, and limited to 125 eo le.
These are the recommendations of KMACand we that they understand the needs
of the community and their recommendations should be observed.
Sincerelyl-,"
61'
J
Judy S
Bernard Suessmeier
t
t
F
C
o
r � s
O.K
� 4
11i4mmud Se' -I-ALzburd, Ph.D.
511 Coventry Rd. JUL 26 2005
Kensington, CA 94707
(510) 525-1372 ! y .._.4.........w.�..�..�.v.._.._. :.
Cn
July 19, Zoos
John Gioia, Supervisor, 1st District
11780 San Pablo Avenue, Ste D
El Cerrito, CA 94530
Dear John: cn
0
I am very disappointed and upset with you as I feel you have not kept faith with
the community. I feel the Danny Sher Special Ordinance you are promoting is
for his benefit alone and is directly harmful to me and my neighbors.
We all found it interesting that your appointee to the camxnission, Len
Battaglia, spoke forcefully about tile lO letters he had that were in support of
Sher and neglected to say that$ of the 10 were not from Kensington people at
all but rather from those who hope to benefit financially from Sher's activities.
One of the two letters from a Kensington resident was from the very disruptive
woman who attended the meeting at your office and is a wonderful reflection of
the friend for whom she wrote. John, this whole thing has a foul odor.
I am now asking for you to support our community, rather than the selfish
interests of a single person who has explicitly declared"war" on the
neighborhood, by adopting the positions outlined by KMAC for a maximum
number of 125 people per event and a limit of 2 events per year;
As you have written the Sher Ordinance it permits an unacceptable impact
upon me and my neighbors and unsafe conditions for such a closely built
community with narrow roads
A countywide, overly permissive ordinance clearly does not fit the needs of
Kensington. Let KMAC develop appropriate guidelines for our community.
Fair treatment of our community will earn the gratitude of myself and many
others.
Very truly,
Leonard Schwartzburd, Ph.D.
Tamara Greenberg
40 Avon Rd
Kensington, CA 94707 �l � � 0�
524-7411
July 22, 2005
John Gioia, Supervisor, 1St District
11780 San Pablo Avenue, Ste. D
EI Cerrito, CA 94530
Dear Supervisor Gioia,
am writing for your support for the position taken by KMAC regarding the events
ordinance which includes a maximum number of 125 people per event and a limit
of 2 events per year.
As you have written the ordinance with three events per year with 300, 200, and
200 people it permits too great an impact upon surrounding neighbors and
unsafe conditions for such a closely built community with narrow roads.
A countywide, overly permissive ordinance does not fit the needs of Kensington.
Let KMAC develop appropriate guidelines for our community.
We will thank you for your time and fair treatment of our community. With your
help we will ensure a more balanced events ordinance.
Sincerely,
Tamara Greenberg
JF
Arno P. Schniewind
JUL 2 7 2005
217 Cambridge Ave
Kensington CA 94708LW%%P~%..Now_
N
Mr. John Gioia ... ....��..�.._...W�......_..._._.._
Supervisor, 1"District
11780 San Pablo Ave
El Cerrito CA 94530
I am writing to express my strong opposition to a Temporary Events Ordinance that has
been proposed for Contra Costa County.
I have been a resident of Kensington since 1962, with some minor interruptions. From
time to time, there have been proposals for Kensington to become incorporated or to be
annexed by the City of El Cerrito. However, these proposals have come to naught, in part
because residents preferred a certain"benign neglect" by the County. In the face of the
proposed Temporary Events Ordinance, one can only wish for more benign neglect
instead of allowing large events drawing Z00 and 300 people in a residential
neighborhood with narrow roads,together with all of the incidental commercial traffic to
provide such services as sound amplification, toilet facilities, and the like. This simply
places too large a burden on the neighborhood, especially those living in the immediate
vicinity.
If a Temporary Events Ordinance cannot be avoided, I feel very strongly that it should
follow the recommendation made by KMAC, namely to limit the number of events per
year to two(2), with a maximum attendance of 125. Events of greater frequency and with
greater attendance are simply not appropriate to a residential neighborhood.
Thank you for your consideration.
Arno P. Schniewind
�I1p01lr � ......_:..-1'._.:-:�.N.:u«avu a-a-c+..a:ww.+•.::�.rrwxw�wsw.s+.wast+�rwtww+aw.w�:+vwa..:.::....-.;
1•.. .. r•'1...:� .y.-N.t..t:l.� ray.w�rc t yr ..tM.xt...ye nnYynw.t
�� •+., ti -.•.s..t!} >✓'Y.T.�j tit�.a.r••Ye3 *tt j-j
«.� t �t^•erot� � �, �iww•rel �y( �,_:._.w I.Mw,�11��
00 5
JUL 27
11 t,. • .1
' 1� �!t•' ..a•..rrM.M`.Y:.t:.•Cl aaAraiY.►ts.+r....s..r�,„1...-___.. ._.
Ben Clow ..
21 Eldridge Court
1/il.JaawtMPMlea'`tffMll+Ysw.�w.t+a+Hc•wwwy...t�.rw�a►wt7RwNlwt r.r�sT1.i.,..__._.._�
Kensington, A 94 '0'7
:�s+.s•!'twMNrSMMW+++r►7RaNwA.��.>atM�r�..�'iw.rk'YNwMM++.ww,a.raw+�aM++tY.-w wtur++u-«ra.»�,a...
Supervisor John Gioia,
11780 San Pablo Avenue, Ste D
El Ceffitol, CA 94530
Dear Supervisor Gioia:
vents leadingto the ordina�.e�e and whilet�h���e unfold�n of e u�
I have followed �
• there should onl he l-2
directly, hel�eve t��.t that �
amphitheatert me I still does not�m�ac
lin�.rted to 125 eople,
annuall , andevents oI"this kind permitted �
e mat theyshould.he
These are the reconzrnendations off`KMAC aid I stron l heliev
M
implemented.
Sincerely!,
Berl Clog
t
a
5 Edgecrotft Road
Kensington, CA 94707.,.",....19 July 2005
x
JUL 26 2005
Mr. John Gioia, Supervisor 1st District
11780 San Pablo Avenue
Suite D, El Cerrito, CA 94530
Dear Supervisor Gioia,
We are writing to express our great disappointment with the proposed ordinance
which would allow large outdoor events on the narrow streets of our community.
We have lived in Kensington for almost forty years and live on a street which
intersects Coventry, near the location of Mr. Scher's benefit events. We have
good reason to be concerned.
First, we feel there is a serious public safety issue to consider. If the streets are
filled with cars parked for these events, access for emergency vehicles would be
difficult. We are aware that Mr. Scher has encouraged concertgoers to park at
BART and use his shuttle service. However, we understand that BART has not
agreed to this arrangement, and we know that any attendees will want the
convenience of having their own cars nearby.
Second, the disruption is not limited to a few hours on the day of the concert.
Equipment and facilities have to be hauled in and taken away, and we doubt that
this can be accomplished without using the previous and following days. A one-day
event becomes athree-day disruption. Is this to be allowed on nine days every
summer?
Third, we are distressed that IC%IAC's tailored recommendations have been set
aside in favor of aone-size-fits-all version. Contra Costa County has some wide-
open spaces and some closely-built neighborhoods, and it is disingenuous to
suggest that three concerts attracting several hundred people are equally
appropriate everywhere. We urge real consideration of KAIAC's proposals, which
would permit Mr. Scher to continue his benefits on a more reasonable scale.
Sincerely,
L cu"
Walder and Marianne Frey
JUL 26 zoos � ?�
Jean LangfordY
8 Eldridge Court f �- ---------�
Kensington, CA 94707
Supervisor John Gioia
11780 San Pablo Avenue, Ste D _
EI Cerrito, CA 94530
Dse' w&- 1jPLM"4eW an�:
am a longtime resident of Kensington and I have followed the development of
events leading up to the proposed ordinance. 1 do not think that events of this
scale belong in this neighborhood, but if we must then I believe that that there
should only be 1-2 events of this kind permitted in one year, and limited to 125
people.
These are the recommendations of KMAC and I strongly believe that they should
be included in the ordinance.
Sincerely,
Jean Langford
July 19, 2005
John Gioia, Supervisor, District One
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
11780 San Pablo Ave., Suite D
El Cerrito, CA 94530
Dear Supervisor Gioia,
I am writing concerning the proposed County ordinance for the regulation of temporary
events. According to a news article in The JournaL(July 15, 2005), the Contra Costa County
Planning Commission recommended that the events ordinance be adopted by a slim margin of 4
to 3. If the supervisors follow their recommendation, the ordinance will be passed. This is
disturbing, since the Kensington advisory board, KMAC, which faithfully reflected the wishes of
Kensington residents, recommended that the ordinance not be adopted unless requested
modifications were made (Kensington Outlook).
My main concern is about the long term effects of the ordinance. By legalizing large
commercial events of 200 or more persons 3 times per year, it will be difficult for neighbors to
argue against residents holding giant flea markets, commercial sales, etc. that are a disturbance to
the neighborhood. The current zoning regulations at least do not explicitly allow such events and
thereby provide a legal basis for objections. Under the proposed ordinance, those who want to
make a little extra money, either for charities or for their personal pockets, will find it more
economical to hold commercial events on their own private residential property rather than incur
the expense of renting space in a commercially zoned district.. With time, property values will
decline as the"flavor" of the neighborhood becomes less tranquil and more heavily trafficked by
outsiders. This means lower property tax money for the County. Is this what the County wants?
Why would the representatives of the County want to cut the County's throat? And even against
the wishes of the majority of the Kensington residents who have voiced or written their opinions,
and against the advisory of KMAC. This doesn't sound like representative government. Who is
being represented? The People have spoken. Listen to them.
According to the news article, even Commissioner Richard Clark, who voted for the
ordinance, said"he would have preferred seeing an ordinance that reflected Kensington
residents' recommendations and applied only to that area." Couldn't that be done? The rest of
the unincorporated county could wait a year or two to see how it goes in Kensington, and then
decide if they would like to be governed by the same ordinance.
Thank you for considering my thoughts.
Sincerely yours,
Yertrude Case
1 Marchant Court., Kensington, CA
July 22,2005
Mr.John Gioia
Supervisor, 1 S`District
11780 San Pablo Ave. Suite D
El Cerrito,California 94530
Dear Mr.Gioia,
My husband and I recently read an article in the El Cerrito Journal concerning the land use issue
currently in dispute.The land use ordinance currently being considered about events in the densely
populated area of Kensington would have too great of an impact for the residents of this
community.We believe that the recommendations of both KMAC and the public dissent by the
residents attending the recent KPOA meeting should be followed.Two events per year for 125
people would have much less impact on the residents.
Three events per year with up to 300 people attending is too great an impact on traffic,noise
levels,and safety.Thank you for your time spent so far on trying to resolve this issue.Please take
into account the unique qualities of Kensington when considering the impact of the land use
ordinance.
Thank you,
William R Buehrin$
One Marchant Court
Kensington, CA 94707
July 22, 2045
John Gioia, Supervisor, ?District
11780 San Pablo Avenue, Suite D
El Cerrito, CA 94530
Ref. Proposed Contra Costa County Special Events Ordinance
Dear Mr. Gioia:
I write this letter to ask you to please amend the proposed ordinance so that it better conforms
to the needs of the Kensington environment, as expressed in the KMAC recommendations.
Considering the proposed ordinance results from a specific Kensington situation, it would seem
that input from KMAC, the Kensington Fire Protection' District and the Kensington residents
would be given greater consideration than presently indicated.
A"one-size fits-all" county-wide ordinance, as proposed, fails to address the specific environment
of Kensington, that being: 1. dense population with relatively small lots in the hills, 2. narrow and
winding roads, and 3. lack of sidewalks in many areas.
KMAC's recommendations, in particular, a maximum limit of 125 people per an event for a
maximum of 2 events per year, are very appropriate for this area.
In the interest of fairness and local needs, I ask that you support the recommendations made by
our local representative body, KMAC.
Sincerely yours,
4.,00/� 6a
Vd ,
William R. Buehring
>
fi7
lathy and-John SteinJUL Lo05 �
32Beverly Rd:
Kensington,CA 9707
(510)524=5393' s
John Gioia
Supervisor, 1"'Disrict
11780 San Pablo* Ave., Ste D-
El
Cerrito, CA 945"30
RE: Temporary Events Ordinance
Dear John'.
We read in the El'Ce' rrito Journal*that the Planning Commission recently voted(in a split
decision: 4to 3)to approve an ordinance that will allow Danny Sher to Bold one 3U0-
person event and two 200-person events each year. We feel'strongly about this matter,
and wish to share with you that we find'this an inappropriate use of residential property in
a residential neighborhood.
In lieu of the ordinance approved by the Planning Commission, we urge you to
incorporate the KMAC'recommendations of a maxiumum two events at 125 persons per
event. Even this we consider very generous to W. Sher -- and indefensible in a
residential-zone.
pectfully,
athy i n
J n Stein
C?�
U
at a&' "L4
�Lr�''2..e�h.�'.,l"`�-
vw�
/2P 14,/44-itro(,
&ez-
"
A)ff
Y-"teAo�.' A-It,
newv�t�Wool
-
02ea"� 4t4.-�?Q-4_., c�-
�1
-xe
Z7 ".
"s T
t.
r
alum )C .Oe.
Ruth Sato Fukiachi6 Marchant Gt �,�Kensington,CA 94%07-1218 ``✓ c7l
irlMr�` ww ••,der
�,..,.,. x++"'� �"•+4""^`�'^'.:�-r..re^r-.,t+t'V•'mss ^'.•,.ZT.,�,,..
/(79
� � f
r ;
S�au �
ticl
•rM it• •r•Sw r� • • • SII•
Supervisor John Gioia
11780 San Pablo Avenue, Ste D
El Cerrito, CA 94530
Dear Supervisor Gioia.-
As a resident of Kensington I do not think that events of this scale belong in our
neighborhood.
KMAC made recommendations that are reasonable and fair; if we must have an
in ordinance then I believe those recommendations should be included the ordinance.
There should only be 1-2 events of this kind permitted in one year, and limited to 125
people.
The recommendations of KMAC should be included in the ordinance.
Sincerely,
.................
/I � �e--C`.t..�l�.- 1��;�G,s r i�.-�tJ"?�2..yy1.�/�:.-��Z �'2/ ,
;�- ,,n -���.
1^7
Peter Sheehan,Attorney at Law
510 16th STREET, SUITE 200
OAKLAND,CA 94612
TELEPHONE: (510) 893-1147
FACSIMILE: (510) 891-9727
August 3,2005
Chairperson Gayle B. Uilkema
Members,Contra Costa Board of Supervisors
c/o Clerk of the Board
651 Pine Street,Room 106
Martinez,California 94553
Re: Proposed Chapter 82-44 Temporary Events Ordinance
Dear Chair Uilkema and Supervisors,
Members of the Coventry Neighborhood Group have contacted this office regarding the proposed
temporary events ordinance, Chapter 82-44.These members are concerned that enactment of the ordinance
and the tri-annual musical concerts that would result from its enactment will diminish the tranquility and
privacy of their neighborhood and reduce the value of their homes.
I have reviewed the ordinance which appears to benefit one individual property owner in Kensington.
The owner constructed an amphitheater on his property for the exclusive purpose of holding commercial style
musical pay to attend concerts. Stadium seats imprinted with"Coventry Grove" are placed on the carefully
terraced hillside providing comfortable theater style seating. A newly constructed stage is wired with state of
the are sound amplification and is large enough to accommodate numerous musicians and entertainers.
I urge the Board not to enact the ordinance and write because I believe the ordinance would be subject
to successful constitutional and statutory challenges if enacted. Specifically,enactment of the proposed
ordinance would be unlawful under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)(Public Resources
Code section 2 1000,et seq.)and the due process guarantees of the California and federal constitutions and also
possibly the takings provisions of the California and federal constitutions.
These legal defects are discussed in more detail below.However,because the proposed ordinance
appears to authorize concerts of the same size and type as previously held by the property owner,it is initially
important to understand the background of the ordinance and the impact of the previous concerts on the
neighborhood.
1
Letter to Chairperson Gayle B.Uilkema
The Kensington neighborhood where these concerts are held is a high density heavily wooded
residential neighborhood where the property lines for a number of residents merge with the subject owner's
property line.The neighborhood has narrow and curving streets which wind into the East Bay Hills.
In 2001 the property owner held several large(300 person)events in his newly constructed
amphitheater.The amphitheater seats approximately 300 persons. In April of2001,after the County received
numerous complaints,the Community Development Department determined that the property owner's use of a
stage and amphitheater for musical concerts was a nonconforming use. In September of 200 1 this Board
upheld the decision of the Community Development Department.The property owner did not challenge that
determination in the Superior Court. ...
Despite the above, the property owner continued to hold concerts at the property on numerous
occasions, including(at least)concerts in September of2002,July of2003, and July, October,and September
of2004.
The County found with respect to the 2004 concerts that: (1) from 200 to more than 300 persons were
present at each concert; (ii)that the concerts were advertised on various web sites
as open to the public with ticket prices ranging from a donation of$150 for one concert to from$250 to$2000
for another concert; (iii)that live music with amplified sound was used at each concert; (iv)that commercial
tTucks,delivered video and audio equipment to the amphitheater; (v)that catered food was delivered by trucks
to the property for the concerts; (vi)that temporary portable toilets were delivered to the property by trucks for
the concerts; (vii)that a temporary liquor permit was obtained for the concerts; and(viii)that traffic was
congested as a result of persons driving to or parking for,at least,the September 2004 concert. See attached
photos taken by county staff for at the September 2004 concert and labeled by the County staff as"September
12,20045 Event: Congestion at Bend of Coventry Road."The County also found that exterior outdoor electrical
lighting had been installed without permits or inspections in the trees in the amphitheater. See copy of attached
May 9,2005,Notice to Comply to Property Owner from Building Inspection Department.The concerts
featured well-known artists including Louie Bellson, a world class percussionist.
1).The Ordinance Would Be Void Because an Environmental Impact Report("EIR")is
Required.
The ordinance is initially defective because CEQA requires the preparation of an environmental
impact report and none has been prepared. Instead,the Planning Commission found that the project was
"exempt from CEQA pursuant to section 15304-minor temporary use of land." The staff comments for the
Planning Commission meeting indicated the project was
2
Letter to Chairperson Gayle B. Uilkema
allegedly exempt from CEQA "pursuant to section 15304(e); minor temporary use of land having a negligible
or no permanent effects on the environment, including carnivals,sales of Christmas trees,etc." Agenda Item
#5,p. S-5.
The Board should reject that conclusion and require completion of an EIR. There is "a low threshold
requirement for preparation of an EIR" (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles(1974) 13 Ca1.3d 68, 84)and a
"preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review." Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma(1992)6
Cal.App.4th 1307, 1316-17. An EIR must be prepared"whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of
substantial evidence that the project may have significant environmental impact" (No Oil, supra, 13 CaL3d at
75), even if there is substantial evidence to the contrary.Arvin Enterprises, Inc. v. South Valley Area Planning
Com. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1333,T346;Friends ofB Street v. City of Hayward(1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988,
1002.
The findings by the County with respect to the previous concerts(which would appear to be
authorized under the proposed ordinance)establish that it can be "fairly argued"that the project (i.e.,the
enactment of the ordinance)may have a significant environmental impact due to, inter alfa, the traffic
congestion,noise, and disruption of the neighborhood caused by the authorization of tri-annual musical
concerts at the amphitheater.
The County's reliance on the categorical exemption in section 15304 is misplaced.The California
Court of Appeal has pointed out that the categorical exemptions(including section 15304) "apply only in those
situations where its absolute and precise language clearly applies."Myers v.Board of Supervisors(1976)58
Cal.App.3d 413,425 (emphasis added). See also:Id at 425 (apply only when "it can be seen with certainty that
there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment").
The"precise language" of section 15304 does not apply here. As again pointed out by the Court of
Appeal: the section"exempts'minor public or private alterations in the condition of land,water and/or
vegetation. . -. . '(italics added.)The examples listed thereunder all refer to various types of minor alterations
in the condition of land with the exception of subdivision(e)which exempts minor temporary uses of land
such as for carnivals and sales of Christmas trees."Myers, supra, 58 Cal.App.3d at 423.Holding tri-annual
concerts with world class performers in an amphitheater seating 300 persons with amplified sound equipment,,
outdoor lighting, catered food,portable toilets,and traffic congestion in a quiet residential neighborhood
cannot be considered a "minor" use of the land similar to the sales of Christmas trees. Cf Myers, supra, 58
Cal.App.3d at 426.
Nor can the proposed legislation, which permanently removes the existing protection against the
holding of large concerts in a quiet residential neighborhood(and throughout the
3
Letter to Chairperson Gayle B.Uilkema
County),be considered a temporary use of the land.
For the above reasons,the Board should direct the preparation of an EIR prior to acting on ordinance.
2.The Ordinance Would Violate the Due Process Guarantees of the California and
Federal Constitutions.
The ordinance, if enacted,would violate the due process guarantees. "The usual test when a zoning [or
land use] ordinance is attacked as being in excess of the police power is whether or not the ordinance bears a
substantial and reasonable relationship to the public welfare."Arnel Development_Company v. City of Costa
Mesa(1981) 126 Ca1.App.3d 330,336(voiding initiative measure that sought to rezone property). See also:
Associated Home Builders etc. Inc. v. City of Livermore(1976) 18 Ca1.3d 582, 604-05. "But judicial
deference is not
judicial abdication.The ordinance must have a real and substantial relation to the public welfare. There must
be a reasonable basis in fact,not in fancy,to support the legislative determination."Arnel, supra, 126
Ca1.App.3d at 339(emphasis in Court's opinion).
The proposed ordinance falls the above test because it does not have a real and substantial relation to
the public welfare. It is difficult to determine what legitimate state interest is furthered by a provision that
would substantially change the land use regulation for residential areas and authorize tri-annual musical
concerts of the type and scope contemplated by the ordinance and that have taken place at one location in the
county.
The Courts have recognized a number of legitimate interests furthered by land use regulations but
none provide support for the ordinance.
The Supreme Court has frequently found that the"State's interest in protecting the well-being,
tranquility,and privacy of the home is certainly of the highest order in a free and civilized society. Our prior
decisions have often remarked on the unique nature of the home,the last citadel of the tired,the weary, and the
sick,and have recognized that preserving the sanctity of the home,the one retreat to which men and women
can repair to escape from the tribulations of their daily pursuits,is surely an important value."Frisby v.Schultz
(1988)487 U.S.4745 484(internal citations deleted). See also: Wardv. Rock Against Racism(1989)491 US
7819longer796("it can no be doubted that has a substantial interest in protecting its citizens from
unwelcome noise [and] this interest is perhaps at its greatest when government seeks to protect the well-being,
tranquility,and privacy of the home.").This legitimate interest would be frustrated,not furthered,by the
proposed ordinance.
Similarly the proposed ordinance does not serve the interests of encouraging the
4
Letter to Chairperson Gayle B.Uilkema
development of housing, increasing the tax base,preventing excess rents,preserving rental housing, or any
other legitimate state interest previously recognized by the courts. Instead,while the ordinance technically
applies throughout the County,it appears to be designed to benefit one property owner's desire to use property
located in a quiet residential area to hold tri-annual music concerts. Compare,Arnel, supra, 126 Ca1.App.3d at
336(voiding initiative measure that discriminated against a particular parcel of property).
3. The Ordinance May Constitute a Taking in Violation of the California and
Federal Constitutions
Enactment of the ordinance and the subsequent resulting concerts may be found to constitute a taking
I index the California and federal constitutions.The Fifth Amendment and Article L section 19 of the
California Constitution prohibit the government from taking private property for public use without just
compensation. "When a regulation does not result in a physical invasion and does not deprive the property
owner of all economic use of the property, a reviewing court must evaluate the regulation in light a number of
factors set forth by the California Supreme court in Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board(1997) 16
CalAth 761, 775. See also:Lingle v. Chevron USA., Inc. US.—1125 S. Ct. 207452081 (2005).The United-
States Supreme Court has held that money damages is a constitutionally required remedy when land use
regulation goes "too far" and effects a temporary taking.First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v.Los
Angeles County(1987) 107 S.Ct. 2378,2385-89.
The three factors that the Courts have emphasized in particular are:(l)n[t]he economic impact of the
regulation on the claimant; (2)the extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment-
backed expectations; and(3)the character of the governmental action."Kavanau, supra, 16 CaI.4th at 775.To
the extent that the ordinance and resulting concerts diminish the value of the residents'homes then the
economic impact would be substantial and the County might potentially be exposed to large damages.
Residents in the neighborhood could be expected to assert that they purchased property with an expectation
that its value would increase.Finally,the character of the governmental action factor would favor liability.The
ordinance could not be justified as preventing harm or public safety(if anything it increases the danger of
harm from fire by permitting the narrow Kensington streets to be congested)but instead would have to be
justified on some other ground of little weight on the character of governmental action scale.
While the Supreme Court recently acknowledged that it has "been unable to develop any set formula
for evaluating regulatory taking claims" (Lingle, supra, 125 S.Ct. at 2081),this very uncertainty in the law and
the subjective nature of the above standards should counsel against
enactment of the ordinance.
5
A
Letter to Chairperson Gayle B.Uilkema
Finally, enactment of the ordinance may subject the County to liability under any number of additional
theories including nuisance. See, e.g., Nestle v. Santa Monica(1972) 6 Cal-3d.920.
For all the above reasons,we request that the Board decline to adopt the proposed
ordinance.
' .
Sincerely,
Peter Sheehan
Attorney at Law
cc: Supervisors
NOTE: The next page is a picture of traffic congestion in front of 500 Coventry Road. This picture is not
included in this transmision.
6
., ,. _ �..:-,��.�„_ �,x...,-_ .t,.:�.�-. �- �.�._ _-. _ _t-._ .__ �., �.www.�>- �,-_ _r
i
�'
f'
}� ..��
�� ;;,�-
a
�' '+�"�u
�~ i���Nw�wi.wa.a�_
�ti-'� '*w
anna Gregorian, el Cerrito, read into the record support ord
Bryan Stone, opposed to Ordinance, too broad, ensinton prob, should be restricted to
kensingon, polling places should be listed as an exemption;
Lisa Larkins,, live less thatn 100 feet away, no permits, noise day and night, bulding,
Support Ordinance,
Danny Scher, fundraising, only complaints only ever come from those who oppose
beliefs; never a complaint from fire or police, .........to knowledge only person fined for
holding a fundraiser in ccc, support the ord,
Kimberly Disnes..., kensington resident and ord, support ord,though taken for granted in
other parts of country,
Connie Martinez., Exec Dir of......san jjose, also fomer planning dir of City of
Mountain View,, and
Jim Hogan, residen of ccc, in favor of proposed Ordinance, exec dir of California Youth
Symphony, support
Amy Osterholm, .
Ted Groom,, oppose
**„ question number of events , nothing in ord to restrict to charitable events, sypthy to
cdd for enfrocement frequirements,
Andrew paul gutierrez, kensington resident, oppose ord,
Lynn Wolter, kensington resident,
Lynnae Dew, Kenneworth Court,Kensingtion, is about amplified music and level of
activity before the event, a wall of noise, oppose ord,
Joan Gaegos, kensington resident,
Tape switch to C
Return.matter to the board,- hrg is open;
C32 Gioia,thanks everyO
Kevin Bums, claims neighbors discriminate be of political views, in favor of ord to make
events legal
David Eikhorn, Kensington resident, within 500 ft of Scher prop;
Leaonard Schwartzberg, ...Ordinance is unenforceable, discrim allegation untrue,
neighbors feel intimidated by D Scher. Senator Perata backs ord,that's why in this form;
Timothy Hoyer, coventry road kensington, ord concocted to satisfy single resident, no
need identified for this within county, ....will allow commercial activity in residental
areas, .0*.subsstitut for a land use permit
Henry Thayer, comment on exper w/scher concerts ...7 houses away, never heard a
sound, no prob seen with pkg
Jane Foldger-Brown, covnetry raod resident, was opposed at first as spec interdest
legislation, answer to prob is a lup, not an ord, ltrs of support are fr orga outsdie ccc that
would benefit
Robert Giuste, residnet kensington, ...storyline of actions
(b 1498)
...silverman,, traffic., mixed feelings, urge pass the ordinate
Jack Walker, (binder), coventry raod kensington, actual location of amphitrea area,
properties adjacent, relation of lhomes to theatre, concerts are noisy, and disruptive day
bef and day after,
Lorraine Osmandson, don't live wilthin hrg distance of concert,but a realtor, disclosure
of these evemts would depress prop values, I
Linda Lipscomb, retired atty, broker license, have sent written material, very narrow
purpose, issue of disclosure for pproperty values ; opposed
Bill Mcnabb; kensington resident, oppose, anyone in unicorp area can have any type
event, not as if other venues are not avail,
...fisherman, local nonprofit, ....rhythmic Concepts,jazz events held at scher,
one who came, best way to minimize impact on neighbors,
Question-Ray, ref to Itr,june 22nd, may
Fee shced-who pays for what, may include cost of enforcement? , approp noise standard,
AUG-09-2005. 13:48 CCCSUPERVISOR JOHN GIOIA 510 374 3429 P.02/03
C a7a aye."*
xt��x� �xxx�
V�alire Pep�rtxaent
21 7 ARLINGTON AVENUE KENSINGTON, CALIFORNIA 94707
�' 7EL� 51 0w526=4141 FAX. 510-526-1028
�It�cf�hlarrt! ,39, (Sarffr[b
of 1lnlicz
August 9, 2005
Gayle B. U'ilkerna, Chir
Contra County Board of Supervisors
651 Pini 9i;., Room 108A
lviartirez, CA 94553
RE: Temporary Events Qtdina-nee
Dear Supervisor Uilkerna:
On behalr of the Kcnsington Police Dcpartment I am sending t1iis in an att Pt tO
P "dehistmical info ation regardine events that have been held in Kensington that
rovi1z
lzatre resulted in the drafting of the proposed Temporary Events Qrdinance.
iilitial The Kcnsin.gton Police Dcpa=cnt respondod to cornPlaants regarding Elieie events
that included complaints of noise disturbance and parking violations. Early on, a
dcnartmcnt supervisor was assigned to monitor all of the events and take whatever
enforcement action necessary.
Discussions were held between the Kensington Police Departnaent and members of the
Contra Costa County District Attom�y's Off ce with regards to two possible pei-ia1 code
violations, as follows-,
,PC 4 1 5(2): "Any person who m4icl4usly and willfully disturbs another person
by loud and uareasonable noise."
PC 370 Public Nuisance Defined
1 i�jut�ous EtAnytbing whichis to health, or is indecent;, or offensive
to the s ensesw or an obstruction to the free use of property,so as to
interfcr.e wilth the comfortab1c mijoyment of life or property by an
4rnrn '
cnttre community or nei ghborhood,or any consi,derable number
of persons, or uujawfuUy obstructs the free passa�eor use,in the
customary manner, of any mavi gable lake,or river,bay stream-1
canal, or basin., or any public park, square, street, or}�igb.wayis a
public nuisance.
AUG-09-2005 13:48 CGCSUPERVISOR JOHN GIOIA 510 374 3429 P.03/0-13
In both instmices the Kensington police Departmeut was advised that th-c incidents did
not meet the elements necessary for prosecution.
Parking and any issues related to it bave also been monitored. A total o#`seven parking
citations have been issued and one vehicle was impounded for blocking the street;
however, the impounded vehicle was not connected to the actual event.
As a xcsult of the hand use violation citations being issued by Contra Costa County,to Ule
event organizer,the Kensington police Depa=ent has denied requests to issue letters to
the State of California Department oi'Alcoholic Beverage Control that would penmit
alcohol sates ai the events that have been decd an illegal lend use.
I lope this infiormation is of assistance to you. If you b.ave any questions please feel free
to contact me.
Sincerely,
1
44'� a04L a
Bauy D_ Garfield
Chief of Police
CC: Supervisor John Gioia
KPPCSD Board of Directors
TOTAL P.03
.�' 15185261028
8/09"2005 11: 0 5 ...... 15 X18 5 2-618 2 8 KENSINGTON PIS CBIS PAGE 0 1
1
• 1. 1 •.. �t/!r�.�r•wr l.e w.r!r",w.
,
1 !1.' II.1 'Ij, r :'�i.��.1'. ) •r :l .i '' «.
......
.. � i. .•! 1•. •_ 1,' �' •.' .. h _y.. •.••1'•��' a. .r .Slay. ,� „ 'il.•f
" - FACSIMILE
TRANSMITTAL
1 �t-..::..'.. ' ..'. r1 .•1"f.t 1. (/�:�a.:y±� 1' 1 1:1 1'i..4 r�. ..
a••
�lu.._JMd1aa/1r�..� ,TnnrA,ww,u•.aM,_q1�1�11y{1I�IrIM.71 w/.srrw/
i�t i ,'..�►1 r .4�'
'r •,�..�� ..t �, .�1�_ i 1 �.I r: •1'1111'!/ .. ._.�.I....i�1 1 ...a�f.
1 :'�. '• ' � «Iii � 11.ti. 1•
KENSINGTON POLICE PROTECTION
AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
217 Arlington Avenue
Kensington, Cailfomia 94707-1401
51
0-526-4141
DATE: 8/9/2305 11
.10 AM
TO:
FROM:
f the Burd 8 D- Garfield Chief of Police
Clerk
,Contra Costa County Beard of Supervisors Kensington Police Deartment
Number of Page � INCLUDES COVER SHEET
COMMENTS:
,Please see attached,
OEM
Barry-Garfield
IF TRANSMISSION IS UNSATISFACTORY, PLEASE PHONE OUR OFFICE
NOTICE The document being faxed 'I's 'Intended orli .
y for the use of the individual or entityto
which it is addressed, and may contain inforrnati
�t8i'H9.'205 11:05 15105261028 KENSINGTON PD & CSL Pf
-CUSTU tian Ij Iva.0xrr r F artmruf
217 ARLINGTON AVENUE / KENSINGTON, CALIFORNIA 947Q7
TEL; 510-526-4141 FAX: 510-526-1028
(!.lTicf of jAry(ir-r
August 9, 2005
Gavle B. Ufl.kema, Cb.a.ir
W,
Contra County Board of Supervisors
C.}51 Rinc St.,, Room 1.08A
Martinez, CA 94553
RE: Temporary Events Ordinance
Dear Supervisor Uflkema:
On behalf of the :Kensington Police Department T am sending this in an attempt to
provide historical lh7formation regarding events that have been.held in Kensington that
have resulted in the drafting of the proposed Temporary Events 01-dinancc.
The Kensin.gton Police Department responded to complaints regarding the initial events
that included complaints of noise di'stuTbaT.i.ce and parking violations. Early on., a
department supervisor was assigned to mon.i.tor all of the events and take whatever
enforcement action necessary.
Discussions were held between the Kensington.Police DepaTiment and mem.bcrs of the
Contra Costa County District Attorney's Office witb regards to two possible penal code
violations, as follows:
PC 415(2): "Any person who maliciously and wi.l.l.fully d.1'sturbsacnotherperson
by loud and unrcasaiiahle noise."
PC 370 Public Nuisance Defined
"Anything which is injunious to health, oris indecent, or offensive
to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to
interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property by an
entire community ar neighborhood, or by any considerable number
of Persons, or tmiawfully obstructs the free passa-ge oz-use, in the
customary manner, of any navigable lake, or river, bay stream,
canal, or basin, or any PLLblkpark, square, street, or highway is a
public nuisance.
2005 11:05 15105261028 KENSINGTON PD & CSD P AUE C1'
In both instances the Kensington Police Department was advised that the incidents did
not meet the elements necessary for prosecution.
Parking and any issues related to it have also been monitored- A total of seven parking
citations have bcen issued and one vehicle was impounded for blocking the street;
110wever, the impounded vehicle was not connected.to the actual. event.
As a result of the land Use violation citations being issued.by Contra Costa County, to the
event organizer, the Kensington Police Department has denied requests to issue letters to
the State of Californ.ia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control that would permit
alcohol sales, at the events that have been. deemed an illegal land use.
Tfeelee hope this ii ormation is of assistance to you. If you haVe any questions pleas fr
to contact rnc,,
Sincerely.
Barry D. GarFeid,
Chief of Police
CC: Supervisor John Gioia
KPPCSU Board of Directors
510 374 3429
AUG-09-2005 13:47 CCCSUPERVISOR JOHN GIOIA 510 374 3429 P.01/03
•j� � Y ��
_ FACSIMILE
,1 + T;:1j• �`�•��!'�,. ..``.`•' .vim•.�r a• Y•��++)1 � +ate 11\11+�1••;•.�+ •i.l�tir';1./i♦
••.�, .. •til - •�•�. .r ♦, •� w 1. / a► r •1_ 7 a 1
• i �• r �' ►1 >. �*w•1.. �.� ;•f� 1' jam.•1�irk 1 a�11.1 blur Ma'rS•1 i 1• ��.Ir 1 <'
1- 1... . -..s..t _ . _.�. .1- ►1. 1:1.Y.1- • 111 .rNMITTAL
7r♦=� .1.• •T� r.{��I•Trf.�+� �'►
--r•♦ :r: . •� •- _r-`[- .•r.:w ♦•1..T..yr_a•aJ r<
KENSINGTON POLICE PROTECTION .♦. - . r•. , I•r•. I�.i♦t
AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
217 Artington Avenue
Kensington, California 9470?-1401
51 Ow52&4141
DATE: 8/9/2005111:10 AIS
1
TO: FROM:
S.upervisor John Gioia IE32rryD. Garfield, Chief of Police
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors.- Kensinqton Police E) r tent
Number of Page 3 INCLUDES COVER SHEET
COMMENTS:
Please see attached.
aw
a r Garfleld
iF TRANSMISSION IS UNSATISFACTORY, PLEASE PHONE OUP OFFICE
NOTICE: The document being faxed is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed, and may contain information?that is privileged, confidential, and exempt
from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,
or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that any dissernimation,distribuCon, or copying of this communication is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,please notify us immediattly
be telephone and return the original rnessage to us at the address above via the United states
Postal service.
•.1 4 4•4 4 4 6444•♦1 t..I••I.•1 Y.•Y
Brian E. Stone, Successor Trustee �' �
Stone Living Trust dated December 16, 1991
554 Cooper Drive
Benicia,, CA 94510
Phone: 707 748-5660 e-mail: besstone@aol.com
Date: August 9, 2005
Contra Costa Board of Supervisors
651 Pine Street, Room 107
Martinez, CA 94553-0095
Re: Agenda Item D.6 on August 9,Board of Supervisors Meeting
Hearings relating to Ordinance No. 2004-25 (Temporary Events Ordinance)
(County File#ZTO50001)
My Standing:
Trustee and Owner of Assessor's Parcels Numbers 570-251-020 and 570-251-021, Lots 7, 8, 9, and 10,
Block"N". Berkeley Woods Addition, (Across from 272 Los Altos Drive, Kensington, CA)
Honorable Supervisors:
I oppose the proposed Ordinance No. 2004-25 (Temporary Events Ordinance), and hope that the Board of
042.1 lAtlev
Supervisors will NOT adopt the Ordinance without m K.15 substantive changes.
This Ordinance should apply ONLY to Kensington, since the issues giving rise to this Ordinance appear only to
exist in Kensington. The Staff Report did not note any other incidents that occurred in other unincorporated
portion of the County. Do not saddle the rest of the County with this Ordinance until its usefulness has been
demonstrated in the area that spawned the need. The required One Year Report to the Planning Commission
would provide the opportunity for this assessment followed by any recommendations that such an Ordinance be
adopted County-wide.
This Ordinance or a similar one,, if adopted, needs to clearly establish what the permit charges might be.
Currently, there are only vague statements in the StaffReport that the permit fees"to ensure that the costs of
considering the permit applications be covered. The Department will be placing this item on the Board's agenda
in September." The reasonableness and practicality of the Ordinance would be reflected in the fees. I would
Bonn might be required.
estimate that such fees to be in excess of$1000, given the and hearings that
Assigning all of the fees to the proponent of a temporary event, as if he/she is the beneficiary of this new
Ordinance, is UNFAIR. The beneficiaries of this new Ordinance are the neighbors and maybe the community,
but not the permitee, whom until this Ordinance was NOT required to get a permit! Since it is impossible to
predict whom the affected neighbors might be, the community should bear the cost of this Ordinance. The
permit fee should b,e minimal and be clearly established in the Ordinance(about $25).
Unless the community(Contra Costa County?) wants to pay for this new Ordinance, it should not be adopted.
The proposed Ordinance has some exemptions for various temporary events, such as an"event held a religious
entity's facility, provided the event is consistent with the underlying land use entitlement." After thinking about
what"temporary events" involving lots of people that were NOT exempted by the Ordinance, I strongly suggest
that VOTING at polling places be included as one of the"exemptions". (I would not include(or consider)
voting to be"an an activity conducted by a governmental agency acting within the scope of its authority."}
In reviewing the Staff Report, I failed to see a definitive statement regarding rights of free speech and assembly
AUG 0 9 M
r
(1'Amendment) and how this proposed Ordinance relate. Requiring permits'. fees, hearings, denial of permits
for a meeting, limiting of numbers of attendee, clearly would have a chilling effect on the rights of citizens
(even in Kensington). I suggest that the 11 Amendment be given the foremost consideration in this Ordinance,
and then go from there to deal with parking, etc. items which I suspect are already covered by existing
ordinances and laws. Perhaps some legal assessment by the County's Counsel could be included for ALL to see
in an updated Staff Report if this Ordinance resurfaces. Just for information the following is the text of the I"
Amendment to the Constitution:
Congress shall make no haw respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof-, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Sincerely,
i
/s/Brian E. Stone
Brian E. Stone
Successor Trustee
cc: e-mailed: to John Oborne (Jobor@cd.cccounty.us)
Dave Stone, Trust Beneficiary, Victoria Curtis
-2-
AUG 0 9 2005
_ 925 335 1076
���OSr'2005
12: 45 925-335-106 S PV GAYLE B U I LKEMA PAGE 01 .
.0010 00000
J&. 0 0
OFF1G'
-..;o*--,TO`i•r FiCE
ST,�TE�:_AF''1Tn!_, ROOM 403;?. 2RO! C0IV�QR1�BOUI,. V.4R0
5•A,CRIIIMF't�,!'���.CA 9581x.
CONCORD.CA 9A51 9
Tr- i 9 2S)G02.65593
TEi_i9l6i 44Zi-0083 tatle
FAY.(9161 445-2527 Cf1.a1tfvrnTi-Axa
r O.?fit 8�?-E�596
.JOIN-1 Gr)14rr?1',ir`AEN r LEN7Lr0
420 WEST 3RD STRFFT
SENATOR ANT1oCH CA 945c)�
STANnINC r_^mtAITTEE TES,c 925,7_154-1461
TOM TORLAKSON FAX :925*)-178-5174
TRANsr'ORTATION&HOUSING
.'Hnry SEVENTH SENATE: DISTRICTw f-5 ,-l'S1jNITV 151'Nr_LLITE OFr'rc: T
S'�•I7�.F_'i-&F'SCl�U R�VI�u' � 1 ' CMG DRIVE
EDUCATION SIM, . TE1_ r L_0C),a5Q 990()
r OVER N M N y i••_may,. '�+
E T
!,rL.ECT
SAY AREA INPRA�TRUCTURE
f
f a
August 4 2005
Super-visor B. Uilkerna, Chair of the Board
and Members, of the Board. of Supervisors
651 Tine Street
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Supervisor Uilkema and Members of the Board:
1 writing n about the TemporaryEvents Ordinance which the board will be considerang on
ani► g
August 9, 2005a
I ai-n aware of the eaten fiivc efforts by Y man interested partiesOVeT the past several years t4o
establish a policy to allow residents to hold charitable fundraising events on their property while
regulating the impacts on the net hborbood.
I want to commend Supem.. 'sor John Gioia, the Community Developn�ent Department., the
mu-nj ci al advisory councils, and the neighborhood. leaders for their coordinated and diligent,
efforts to develop this fair and reasonable process.
The Temporary Event,,; Ordinance establishes a fair pelitting process that offers a balanced
regulatory vehicle for protecting neighbors from the negative impacts,of back yard events,, while
protecting the .right to hold events at one s property.
I encourage your support for the ordinanCe.
Sincerely,
OW01WOMWO19111 000rmo� 4A
IA;rt RYVIAMZ
Senator Tom Torlakson
I ft
C lee U
1 c
,b- '-(2 U 0 2 C1
JA C1.1"' L WALVER "GE 1-01
4;�M 5000" '-JSeAoVW
CE�lJ511�Ej�Z �/
go
moo
Peter- Sheehan, Attorney at Law
510 16`h STREET, SUITE 200
OAKLAND, CA 94612
TELEPHONE: (S 10) 893-1147
FACSIMILE, (510) 891-9727
August 3, 2005
Chairperson Gayle B. Uilkema
Members, Contra Costa Board off'Supervisors
c/o Clerk of the Board
651 Pine street, Room 106
Martinez, Cafiforn,ig 94553
Re: Proposed t'hap„ler 82-44 Temporary Events Ordinance
Dear Chair LJilkema and Supervisors,
Members of the Coventry Neighborhood Group have contacted this office, regarding the
proposed temporary events ordinance, Chapter 82-44. These members are concerned that
enactment of the ordinance and the tri-annual musical concerts that would result from its
enactment will diminish the tranquility and privacy of their neighborhood and reduce the value. of
their homes.
I have reviewed the ordinance which appears to benefit one 'Individual property owner in
Kensington. The owner constructed an amphitheater on his property for the exclusive purT)ase ox 4%
holding commercial style musical pay to attend concerts. St 1w'il seats imprinted with
"Coventry Grove" are placed on the carefully terraced hillside providing comfortable theater stye
it
seating. A newly con4structed stage 'is wired with state of the are sound amplification and '-4s large
enough to accommodate numerous musicians and entertainers.
I urge the Board not to enact the k)rdinance and write because I believe the ordinwice
would be subject to successful constitutional and statutory challenges if enacted. Specifically,
enactment of the Proposed ordinance would be. unlawful under the Galifomia Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code section 21000. et seq.) and the due process
g=antees of the California and federal constitutions and also possibly the takinWs provisis.,ns of
the California and federal constitutions.
These legal defects are discussed in more detail.below. However, because the proposed
ordinance appears to authorize concerts of the same size and type as pmvivusly held by the
property owner, it is initially irnporkant to understand the background of the ordin,"ce and the..
impact of the ptevious concerts on the neighborhood.
ij
U b bi Ut' /--01388
4- JACK L WALKER
PAGE 0
Letter to Chairperson Gayle Q. Uilkema
The Kensington neighborhood where these concerts are held 'is a high density heavily
wooded residential neighborhood where the property lines for a number of residents merge with
the subject owner's property line. The neighborhood has narrow and curving streets which wind
jn.to the Fast Bay Hills,
In 2001 the property owner held several large (300 person)events in his newly
constructed amphitheater. The amphitheater seats approximately 300 persons. In April of 2001,
after the County received numerous complaints,the Community Development Department
determined that the property owner's use of a stage and amphitheater for musical concerts-was a
nonconforming use. In September of 2001 this Board upheld the decision of the Community
Development Department. The property owner did not challenge that determination in the
Superior Court. AW 10
Despite the above,the property owner continued to hold concerts at the property on
numerous occasions, including(at least)concerts in September of 2002, July of 2003, and July,
October, and September of x004.
The County found-with respect to the 2004 concerts that: from 200 to more than 300
persons were present at each concert; (ii) that the concerts were advertised on various web sites
as open to the public with ticket prices ranging From a donation of S 150 for one concert to from
$250 to $2000 for another concert; (iii} that live music with amplified:sound was used at each
concert-, (iv) that commercial trucks delivered video and audio equipment to the amphitheater;
ice) that catered food was delivered by trucks to the property for the concerts; (vi) that temporary
portable toilets were delivered to the property by trucks fir the concerts; (vii) that a temporary
#&liquor permit was obtained far the concerts; and viii) that traffic was congested as a result of
persons driving to or parking for, at least, the September 2004 concert. See attaches photos taken
by county staff for at the September 200 concert and labeled by the County staff as "-September
12, 2004, Event-, Congestion at Bend of Coventry Road." The County also found that exterior
outdoor electrical lighting had been installed without permits or inspections in the trees in the
amphitheater. See copy of attached May 9, 420005, Notice to Comply to Property Owner from
'Ruilding Inspection Department. The concerts featured well-known artists including Louie
Belison, a world class percussionist.
1. The Ordinance Would Be Void Because an Environmental Impact Repaal (`tEIR'') is
Required
The ordinance is initially defective because CEQA requires the preparation of ain
environmental 'impact report and none has been prepared. Instead, the. Planning Commission
found that the project was "'exempt from CEQA pursuant to section 15304-mi-nor temporary use
t%land."oi The staff, conmients for the Planning C'ommissian indicated meeting the }project was
2
5 05., 06: 20 510-52. 1-0988 JA`CK L WALKER F GE 0`3
Letter to Chairperson Gayle B. Cldkettja
allegedly exempt from C:EQA "pursuant to section 15304(e); minor temporary use of land having
a negligible. or no permanent effects on the environment, including carnivals, sales of Christmas
trees, etc." Agenda Item #5, P- S-5.
The Board should reject that conclusion and require completion of an E1R. "I"here is "a
low threshold requirement for preparation of an EIR" (IVB Oil, Inc. v. Cih:of Los Angeles (1974)
13 Cal.3d 68, 84) and a"preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental Te.View.,
Sierra Club v. County ofSonoma (1992) 6 Ca1.App.4th 1307, 1316-17. An FIR must be prepared
whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have
significant environmental "Impact" (No 0d, supra, 13 Ca1.3d at 75), even if there C'om.'is substant.-I'al
evidence to the contrary. Arvin Enterprises, Inc. v. South Valley Area Planning (2002) 1 0 1
Cal.App.4th 13339 Y'346; Friends of B Street v. City qf Hayward(1980) 106 Ca1.App.3d 983,
1002.
The findings by the County With respect to the previous concerts(which would app!ar to
be authorized under the proposed ordinance) establish that it Can be"fairly argued"that the
project (i.e., the enactment of the ordinance) may have a significant envirorunental impact due to.,
inter alfa, the traffic congestion, noise, and disruption of the neighborha<)d caused by the
authorization of iri-annual musical wncerts at the amphitheater.
The County's reliance on the categorical exemption in section 1 5304 'is misplaced. 'ne
California Court of Appeal has pointed out that the categorical exemptions (including sectiort
15304) "apply only in those situations where its absolute and precise language. clearly aPTI lies."
Ir
Myers v. Board o (:emphasis added). See zdso. Id. at
Y oupervisors (.1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 413, 425
in425 (apply only when""it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity
question may have a significant effect on the environment").
The "precise language" of section 15304 does not apply here. As again pt}intepd Out hyo the
Court of Appeal: the section""exempts "minor public or private alterations in the condition of
land, water and/or vegetation. (italics added.) The examples listed thereunder all refer to
various types of minor alterations in the condition of land with the exception of subdivision{e)
which exempts minor temporary uses of land such as fc�r carnivals and sales of Christmas xreers;."
Myers,supra, 58 Ca1.App.3d at 423. Holding tri-annual concerts with world class perfi-)rmers ire
IF
an amphitheater seating 300 per-sons with amplified sound equipment, outdoor lighting, catered
food, portable toilets, and trat��Fic congestion in a quiet residential neI*ghtx)rhcx)-d cannot be
considered a"minor" use of the land similar to the sales of Christmas trees. Cf. Myers, supra, 58
Ca1.App.3d at 426.
Not'can the proposed legislation, which permanently removes the existing protection
against the holding.of,large concerts in a quiet residential neighborhood (and throughout the
3
At5l/2 A-0 5, 0 6: 2 0 510--527--0988 TACK L WALKER
PA
Letter to Chairperson Gayle B. Uilkema
County), be considered a temporary use of the land.
For the above reasons, the Board should direct the preparation of an EIR prior10 acting
on ordinance.
2. The Ordinance Would Violate the Due Process, Guarantees of the Caiifomia and
Federal Constitutions
The ordinance, if enacted, would violate the due process guarantees. "'The usual test
when a zoning [or land use] ordinance is attacked as being in excess of the Police power is
whether or not the ordinance bears a substantial and reasonable relationship to the public
welfare."Arnel DeMloprnent Company v. City of Costa Mesa(199)) 126 Cal.App.3d X30
(voiding initiative measure that sought to rezone property). See also: Associated Home Builders
etc. Inc. v. City of Livermore (1976) 18 Cal.3d 582,604-05. "But judicial deference is not
judicial abdication. vrhe,ordinance must have a real and substantial relation to the public vieffare-
There must be a reasonable bas's in fact, not in fancy, to support the legislative detetYnlnat an.
Arnel,supra, 126 Cal.App.3d at 339(emphasis in Court's opinion).
The proposed ordinance fails the above test because it does not have a real and substwitial
relation to the public welfare. I.t is difficult, to determine what legitimate state interest is furthered
by a Provision that would substantially change the land use regulation for residential areas and
authorize tri-annual musical concerts of the type and scope contemplated by the ordinance and
that have taken place at one location in the county.,
The Courts have recognized a number of legitimate interests furthered try land use
regulations but none provide support for the ordinance.
1'he Supreme Court has frequently found that the "State's interest in protecting the
well-being, tranquility, and privacy of the home is certainly of the highest orderin a free and
civilized society. Our prior decisions have often remarked on the unique nature of the hQrne, the
last citadel of the tired, the weary, and the sick, and have recognized that preserving the sanctity
0
of the hon-ie., the one retreat to which men and women can repair to escape from the tribulations
of their daily pursuits, is surely an important value." Frisby v. 5chultz(1988) 487 U.S. 474, 484
(infernal citations deleted). See also. Ward il. Rock Against Racism (19$9} 491 U-S 7?1, 0496 `Fi t
can no longer be doubted that government has a substantial interest in protecting its citizens from
unwelcome noise (and] this interest is perhaps at its greatest when goverment v*;ks to Protect
the well-being, tranquility, and privacy of the home."). This legitimate interest wouid tx*.
frustrated, not furthered, by the proposed ordinance.
Similarly the proposed ordinance does not sen;e the interests of encouraging the
4
C1 k'_75 i?0 05 Fj 6: 510-5'12-1-17--0980 T f L �-,J L I E P P A
better to Chairperson Gayle B. Uilkemx
deveiopment of housing,, increasing the tax base, preventing excess rents, preserving rental
housing, or any other legitimate state interest previously recognized by the courts. Instead, while
the ordinance technically applies throughout the County, it appears to be designed to benefit one
property owner's desire to use property located in a quiet residential area to hold tri-annual music
concerts. Compare,, Arnel,supra, 126 Ca1.App.3d at 336 (voiding initiative measure that
discriminated against a particular parcel of property).
3. The Ordinance May Constitute a Taking in Violation of the California and Federal
Constitutions
Enactment of the ordinance and the subsequent resulting concerts may be found to
constitute a taking ftder the Califortiia and federal constitutions. The Fifth Amendment and
Article I., section 19 of the California Constitution prohibit the government from taking private
property for public use without dust compensation. "When, a regulation does nit result in a
physical 'invasion and does not deprive the property owner of all economic use of the property, a
reviewing court min ust evaluate the regulation light a number of factors set forth by the
California Supreme court in Kavanau v. Santa Monica Real Control Board(1997) 16 Cal.4th
761, 775. See also: Lingle v. Chevron U.S+A., Inc. U.S. 4t 125 S. Ct. 2074, 2081 (2005). The
United States Supreme Court has held that money damages is a constitutionally required remedy
when land use regulation goes"too far" and effects a temporary taking. First English Evangelical'
Lutheran Church v. Los Angeles County(1987) 107 S.Ct. 23-78-j 2385--89.
The three factors that the Cowls have emphasized in particular am.-(I) "[t]he economic
impact of the regulation on the claimant; (2) the extent to which the regulation has interfered
N,vith distinct investment-backed expectations-, and (3) the character of the governmental action.
Kavanau, supra, 16 Cal.4th at 775. To the extent that the ordinance and resulting concert,
diminish the value of the residents' homes then the economic impact would be substantial and
the County might potentially be exposed to large damages. Residents in the neighborhood could
be expected to assert that they purchased property with an expectation that its value would
increase. Finally, the character of the gaverrirnentaf action factor would favor liability, The
ordinance could not be Justified as preventing harm or public safety (if any-thing it increases the
danger of harm fron-1 fire by perinittin� the narrow Kensington streets to be congested) but
weight on the character of
instead would have. to be justified on some other ground of little wel
governmental action scale.
While the Supreme Court recently acknowledged that it. has "been unable to develop any
set formula for evaluating regulatory taking claims" (Lingle, supra, 125 S.Gt. at 208 1), this very
W,
uncertainty in the law and the subjective nature of the above standards should counsel against
enactment of the ordinance.
5
cr� JACK L WALKER
PA
GE 06
setter to Chai'qRrson.Gayle B. Uilkenia
• Y
Finally, enactment of the ordinance may club ect the County to liability under any number
of additional theories, including nuisance_ See, e.g., Nestle v. Santa Monica 1972) 6 Cai-'-d4.
910.
For all the above reasons, we request that the Board decline to adopt the Propo,sed
ordinance.
f
sincerely,
eter Sheehan
Attorney at Law
cc: Supervisors
�' .
Brian E. Stone,, Successor Trustee
Stone Living Trust dated.December 16, 1991
554 Cooper Drive 400)
Benicia, CA 94510
Phone: 707 748-5660 e-mail: besstone@aol.com
Date: August 9, 2005
Contra Costa Board of Supervisors
651 Pine Street, Room 107
Martinez, CA 94553-0095
Re: Agenda Item D.6 on August 91 Board of Supervisors Meeting
Hearings relating to Ordinance No. 2004-25 (Temporary Events Ordinance)
(County File#ZTO50001)
My Standing:
Trustee and Owner of Assessor's Parcels Numbers 570-251-020 and 570-251-021,Lots 7, 8, 9, and 101
Block"N". Berkeley Woods Addition, (Across from 272 Los Altos Drive, Kensington, CA)
Honorable Supervisors:
I oppose the proposed Ordinance No. 2004-25 (Temporary Events Ordinance), and hope that the Board of
044
Supervisors will NOT adopt the Ordinance without mn1A*%" substantive changes.
This Ordinance should apply ONLY to Kensington, since the issues giving rise to this Ordinance appear only to
exist st in Kensington. The Staff Report did not note any other incidents that occurred in other unincorporated
portion of the County. Do not saddle the rest of the County with this Ordinance until its usefulness has been
demonstrated in the area that spawned the need. The required One Year Report the Planning Commissionto
would provide the opportunity for this assessment followed by any recommendations that such an Ordinance be
adopted County-wide.
This Ordinance or a similar one,, if adopted, needs to clearly establish what the permit charges night be.
Currently, there are only vague statements in the Staff Report that the permit fees"to ensure that the costs of
considering the permit applications be covered. The Department will be placing this item on the Board's agenda
in September." The reasonableness and practicality of the Ordinance would be reflected in the fees. I would
estimate that such fees to be in excess of$1000, given the mailing and hearings that might be required.
Assigning all of the fees to the proponent of a temporary event,, as if he/she is the beneficiary of this new
Ordinance,, is UNFAIR. The beneficiaries of this new Ordinance are the neighbors and maybe the community,
but not the permitee, whom until this Ordinance was NOT required to get a permit! Since it is impossible to
predict whom the affected neighbors might be, the community should bear the cost of this Ordinance. The
permit fee should be minimal and be clearly established in the Ordinance(about $25).
Unless the community(Contra Costa County?) wants to pay for this new Ordinance, it should not be adopted.
The proposed Ordinance has some exemptions for various temporary events, such as an"event held a religious
entity's facility, provided the event is consistent with the underlying land use entitlement."' After thinking about
what"temporary events" involving lots of people that were NOT exempted by the Ordinance, I strongly suggest
that VOTING at polling places be included as one of the"exemptions". (I would not include(or consider)
voting to be"an activity conducted by a governmental agency acting within the scope of its authority.")
In reviewing the Staff Report, I failed to see a definitive statement regarding rights of free speech and assembly
AUG 0 9 1005
Amendment) hearings,�' (11 and how this proposed Ordinance relate. Requiring permits, fees, denial of permits
for a meeting, limiting of numbers of attendees, clearly would have a chilling effect on the rights of citizens
(even in Kensington). I suggest that the I'Amendment be given the foremost consideration in this Ordinance,
and then go from there to deal with parking, etc. items which I suspect are already covered by existing
ordinances and laws. Perhaps some legal assessment by the County's Counsel could be included for ALL to see
in an updated Staff Report if this Ordinance resurfaces. Just for information the following is the text of the ?
Amendment to the Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof-, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people
It
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Sincerely'.
/s/Brian E. Stone
Brian E. Stone
Successor Trustee
cc: e-mailed: to John Oborne (Jobor@cd.cccounty.us)
Dave Stone, Trust Beneficiary, Victoria Curtis
-2-
AUG 0 9 2005